Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Closed Circuit Television

Lindsay Hoyle: What plans he has to increase the funding of grants for the extension of CCTV schemes.

John Denham: Six hundred and seventy-one CCTV schemes have been funded at a cost of about £170 million under the crime reduction programme. Opportunities for funding CCTV schemes exist under the communities against drugs and the small retailers in deprived areas initiatives.

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Will he find extra funding for the successful schemes in Chorley in the town's fight against crime? Will he also ensure that grants will be available for community wardens in the Chorley scheme?

John Denham: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's strong support for crime reduction measures in Chorley. Funds are available—including communities against drugs money—that could be used on a variety of means to tackle crime and disorder. We shall announce further arrangements for funding crime reduction in the near future.

Julian Lewis: The death of a fine young man, Tim Robinson, in a stabbing incident while he was parking his car in London has caused great grief in the village of Beaulieu in my constituency, where he was brought up and where his parents still live. It seems likely that CCTV will play a vital role in the apprehension of his killers, but does the Minister agree that, were it not for the stop and search restrictions that have resulted from the constant accusations of racism against the police, it would be possible to deter a considerable number of would-be criminals from casually carrying knives when they go about their evil work?

John Denham: All hon. Members will agree that the crime to which the hon. Gentleman referred was appalling and that it is essential that we take the firmest possible action to stamp out such crime. The House will be aware of the moves announced by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, which, from today, will lead to about 475 extra officers being deployed in London to tackle street robbery. It is essential that that be done.
	However, I do not agree that restrictions have been placed on stop and search. Powers to stop and to search are an essential part of effective policing and we are determined to ensure that that can continue, but in ways that maintain the confidence of all the communities that are being policed.

Brian Iddon: A few years ago in my constituency, a taxi driver died as a result of a fracas in a private-hire taxi. Bolton is the first local authority to install miniature CCTV cameras on the windscreens of black cabs and private-hire vehicles. That successful experiment has been made permanent. The scheme is self-financing in that taxi drivers have to lease the cameras, but the cost is offset by their reduced insurance premiums. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that brave experiment should be spread throughout the country?

John Denham: I am fascinated to learn of that initiative in Bolton, of which I was not aware. Much extraordinarily good innovative work is going on throughout the country to reduce and fight crime, and we are working as hard as we can to spread best practice. If my hon. Friend will give me further details, I shall make sure that they are posted on the Home Office website, so that people in all parts of the country can study them and learn from that success.

Michael Fallon: More cameras are welcome, but does the Minister agree that they should be a complement to, not a substitute for, more police resources in front-line area policing and more regular patrolling?

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Wherever I have been, the police welcome CCTV as a tool to help them in the fight against crime, but of course we need more police officers. That is why, this spring, we shall have a record number of police officers in England and Wales, and in spring 2003 there will be more than 130,000. It is not only a matter of having more officers, but of making the best use of their time. That is why we set up a taskforce, headed by the former chief inspector of police, Sir David O'Dowd, to find ways of cutting red tape and bureaucracy and freeing up police officer time so that officers can be out in the community where the public want to see them.

Language and Citizenship Education

Tony Cunningham: If he will make a statement on his plans to offer language and citizenship education to those settling long term in the UK.

David Blunkett: In a few days, I will be publishing a comprehensive and holistic policy paper on nationality, managed migration and asylum. As part of the programme for integration with diversity and building social cohesion I shall expand on our proposals for English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic to be understood by those seeking citizenship, together with an understanding of society and its institutions.

Tony Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is fairly self-evident that new citizens who are fluent in English will have a much greater chance of successfully integrating into the community and of getting jobs, and that an understanding of citizenship will lead to new citizens taking a fuller part in the democratic process? But does he further agree that not just new citizens need to have a greater understanding of the responsibilities of citizenship; everyone has a part to play in combating bigotry and prejudice?

David Blunkett: Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is why I am proud to have piloted, as the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the citizenship programme in our schools, which becomes mandatory from September this year, and to have instilled an understanding that, in post-16 and adult education, we need to produce throughout the country not simply an understanding of equality so that we reach out to those who come into our community—important though that is—but an understanding of our institutions so that people can use democracy to bring about peaceful change. If we can achieve that and ensure that that programme is available for those who seek our citizenship, Britain will have a more stable backcloth and foundation to ensure that we overcome racism and bigotry, which are unacceptable in any guise.

Hywel Williams: Cultural and linguistic diversity are to be greatly valued, so I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the Welsh language, but may I press him to ensure that opportunities to learn Welsh are available not only in the so-called Welsh-speaking areas, but throughout the country?

David Blunkett: The Assembly is keen to ensure that such opportunities are available in Wales, and I shall certainly talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about Welsh being available in England. That would ensure that people could gain access to jobs more readily if they moved to Wales, which, of course, underlines the reason why it is so important in education, training and employment to have a grasp of the language that is regularly used.

Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, before we move towards a stronger requirement for a knowledge of English to obtain citizenship, we must ensure that there is adequate teaching of English as a second language in every area where there is a large ethnic community? I visited an English class for mainly Asian women in Bradford a few weeks ago and sat in on interviews with those Asian women. They were all told that they would have to wait 12 months before they could join the class. That is not the case in Keighley, but it certainly is in Bradford.

David Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Such teaching is part of the basic skills agenda. The Secretary of State has asked the Learning and Skills Council to map where facilities are available throughout the country. When I publish the White Paper, we shall make it clear that it is no longer acceptable to provide free facilities for the head of the family, but not for the spouse who has come into the country, and we will put that right.

Patrick Cormack: I in no way wish to challenge the Home Secretary's enthusiasm for the Welsh language, or even for Scottish Gaelic, but does he accept that it is of paramount importance that every British subject should be fluent in the English language and that, following on the question asked by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), everything should be done to expedite classes and ensure that he sets himself a target so that, by the end of this decade, all British subjects are fluent in the English language?

David Blunkett: I should like to set myself a target, but I shall draw breath after the mapping of the facilities. It would be nice to ensure that the indigenous population, as well as those who come into the country, spoke fluent English before the end of the decade. I have been reprimanded, sotto voce, by one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for mispronouncing "Gaelic", for which I apologise.

David Lammy: I am grateful to the Government for introducing better citizenship classes for people who are newly arrived in Britain, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the majority of ethnic minority people in this country were born in Britain? What steps is his Department taking, working with the Commission for Racial Equality and the race equality unit, to ensure that younger ethnic minority people in particular can better participate in life in Britain?

David Blunkett: I believe that that is part of the social cohesion agenda being taken forward by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs. That point should be integrated with my hon. Friend's wider point. He is right that most second and third generation migrants speak English as well as anyone else, but the difficulty is that their parents and grandparents often do not have that ability. There is therefore a tension between what happens at home and what happens at school or on the street. That point came out in the Cantle report, which said that people were torn between two different countries, cultures and societies. We need to address that point and not destroy the cultural heritage or diversity that are the ingredients of our country, but help people through those tensions.

Community Support Officers

Hilton Dawson: If he will make a statement on the role of community support officers in reducing the fear of crime.

Colin Pickthall: What further resources he plans to allocate to local authorities and community safety partnerships to extend the provision of community wardens.

John Denham: Community support officers will be under the command and control of the chief officer and will have limited powers conferred on them. They will be deployed in the community, providing a visible policing presence, and will have a vital role to play in support of the police in reducing the fear of crime, increasing public safety and tackling antisocial behaviour.
	More than 450 neighbourhood warden posts have so far been funded by the Government, with a further 700 street warden posts due to come on stream in April this year.

Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend enlarge on that helpful answer? First, will he commit himself to visiting the fine city of Lancaster to witness the pilot project that is in place there? Traffic wardens have been converted by the constabulary into a potent force to develop community policing and support in the Ridge and Freehold area. Does my right hon. Friend have thoughts on the way in which community support officers can be combined with regeneration opportunities, the Government's employment policies and investment in learning, skills and sporting facilities to provide an integrated package of support for communities to reduce crime and the fear of crime?

John Denham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the initiative in his local area. It enables me to emphasise once again that the Government's plans for community support officers have been drawn up in close consultation with sections of the police service, and many parts of the police service already want to move ahead on those lines. Clearly, in areas of deprivation, and in areas in need of regeneration, the presence of extra people in the community to tackle low-level antisocial behaviour and to help to deal with issues such as abandoned vehicles and graffiti can help to build the confidence of the community and enable regeneration to take place successfully.

Colin Pickthall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the exemplary community warden scheme in West Lancashire, which has been made possible by the total commitment of West Lancashire district council, by the enthusiastic co-operation of the police and the Home Office, and by public approval? The only complaint about community wardens is that there are not enough of them. Will he encourage such successful schemes by providing extra resources in the near future so as to add to their numbers?

John Denham: As I said, the number of posts supported by the Government continues to increase, and a further 700 street warden posts are due to be filled in the next few months. Clearly, we shall want to consider the issue in the next spending review. It is also worth stressing that a significant number of street warden posts are being created at a purely local level by registered social landlords and local authorities, who recognise that it is an extraordinarily cost-effective way of dealing with problems in the community that often cost a great deal more if there is an absence of an authority figure in the area.

Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware that Liberal Democrats welcome the idea of community support officers with properly defined responsibilities? Will he and the Home Secretary use every opportunity—as the Government are keen to do—to get two messages across? People should know that the result of having additional people to help the police will be more fully qualified police on the streets to prevent crimes and catch those who participate in serious crimes against the person. We have seen examples of such crimes in recent weeks, whether robberies of mobile phones, an offence of violence against the person, or car-jacking, an offence of serious threat of violence against the person. Detection rates will increase because we shall catch more people and it will be possible to punish people appropriately. Such people should know that offences against the person are in a different league from offences against property and that they can expect the punishment to be in a different league accordingly.

John Denham: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support. He is right that the role of community support officers will complement that of the professional police officer. The roles are not to be confused, and one operates in support of the other. One of the main reasons for that is to enable the police to concentrate their time and efforts on the serious crimes that rightly worry the public and on which they wish the bulk of police energy to be directed. It is critical, at the moment, that every effort is made to concentrate resources on persistent offenders who cause the majority of crime so that they are identified, caught, convicted and punished.

Nicholas Soames: While agreeing that anything that can be done to reduce the fear of crime is important in our society, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what really matters is dealing with violent crime, on which the Government have a dismal record? Is he aware of the serious offences committed in the past few days in central London? What is he going to do to make the lives of people who are under the constant threat of violent street crime easier and more secure?

John Denham: The public are rightly concerned about the sort of crimes to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it is worth remembering that the British crime survey published last autumn showed a significant fall in the public experience of violent crime last year. I am in no way complacent because street robbery is a real concern that has to be tackled. We will do what the previous Government failed to do: we will have more police officers and ensure that those convicted of carrying out such serious crimes receive serious punishment. I welcome, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does, the decision by the commissioner of the Metropolitan police to deploy from today another 475 officers specifically to tackle street robbery.

Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that excellent community safety partnership schemes can be set back if the local government settlement is not appropriate? That has happened to neighbourhood partnerships in my area because of the effect of negative subsidy on the settlement. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will make it clear to his colleague with responsibility for local government that it is important for every area to have real growth and that we do not lose such valuable schemes because of the small print on local government settlements?

John Denham: I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. However, I must stress two things. The first is that the Government have provided significant funding for neighbourhood warden and street warden schemes. The second is that many local authorities believe that investment in the schemes is cost effective in terms of the use of their resources. The schemes do not have to dissuade much graffiti or environmental damage for the local authorities to be net gainers from their investments.

James Paice: Is it not sadly the reality in many parts of our country that the fear of crime and the crime profile are rising sharply? For example, the tragic incident was mentioned earlier of an innocent person who was murdered on getting out of their car. Is it not also the case that robbery in some London boroughs has doubled in a year? Surely the highest priority should be given to providing a first-rate service of policing our streets, in terms of both numbers and professionalism. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of people's grave concern that that cannot be delivered by using partly trained people with different powers that might vary force by force or even borough to borough? Is it not clear that as our streets become, or at least appear to become, ever more rather than less dangerous—

Paul Flynn: Not true.

James Paice: In those circumstances, policing needs to be met by fully trained officers with full powers.
	Anyone who suggests that that is not true should walk down the streets in some London boroughs and find out for themselves. They could even look at the Government's figures that show that street robbery doubled in the past 12 months in four London boroughs.

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman would do better to have a conversation with the Metropolitan police, as it has pioneered, pressed for and indeed persuaded us that the creation of community support officers is a key part of its strategy to police the streets of London effectively. I suggest that before he rubbishes the idea, and if he is concerned about street robbery in London, he should talk to the Metropolitan police.
	As I said, the Metropolitan police is deploying extra officers dedicated to tackling street robbery. Lord Justice Woolf has made clear the importance that should be attached to sentencing those who commit such vicious robbery. We will ensure that they are properly punished and that measures are in place to put those who are detected and caught under proper and effective supervision, because we are determined not to swap party political chitchat across the Chamber but to get a grip on the problem.

John McFall: The Minister will agree that we need the confidence of local groups and communities if we are to tackle crime effectively. Too many of them rightly feel that there are insufficient police on the streets. Will my right hon. Friend therefore take the opportunity of the forthcoming Police Reform Bill to ensure that those who wish to serve their communities for many years as sergeants and constables are rewarded and peripheral areas are cut, so that more money is put on the street, where it deserves to be?

John Denham: Yes, by tackling red tape and bureaucracy in the police service we shall free up police time. One key aim behind the policing priority posts, which are part of the heads of agreement with the Police Federation, is to enable people who do the most difficult and demanding policing jobs to be properly rewarded and to be given an incentive to stay in those difficult front-line jobs.

Asylum

Gary Streeter: What steps he is taking to reform the asylum system.

David Blunkett: As referred to a moment or two ago, in the White Paper that I am about to publish I shall build on the statement that I made on 29 October. I want a radical improvement in the way that we operate our asylum system, including in the immigration and nationality directorate and the national asylum support service, and to set that in the context of a managed migration programme. It is time to see asylum not in isolation but as part of dealing with worldwide movements of people, all of whom are either seeking a better life or fleeing persecution.

Gary Streeter: How does the Home Secretary explain his spectacular failure to prevent asylum seekers who are already safe in France from stampeding through the channel tunnel and ferry ports to seek asylum in this country? Is it not obvious to everyone that the Dublin convention is not working? What does he intend to do about it?

David Blunkett: As we shall debate in a few moments, the very fact that people are seen scrabbling to get over the barbed-wire shows that they are not flooding into Britain in the way just described. In fact, the number of people who managed to get through the French end of the channel tunnel fell from 808 in July to 32 in December. I do not think that that is a sign of failure; I think that it is a sign of success. If the hon. Gentleman had anything about him, he would stand up and congratulate us on making a difference.

Chris Mullin: Does the Home Secretary agree that although it is desirable that the number of failed asylum seekers to be deported should be increased, that must be done humanely? Does he particularly agree that we should be taking steps to ensure that some facilities await young children on their arrival back home, and that they are not simply flown to the other side of the world and dumped, with their families, at an airport and wished good luck?

David Blunkett: A sensible debate would acknowledge that the longer a family has been here and the longer children have been integrated and have been receiving an education, the more difficult it is both to remove and to resettle them. It is important that we have a policy for returners that is sensitive to their needs, that is effective and determined, but that reflects the points that my hon. Friend makes. I promise him that in publishing the White Paper and taking it forward, we will of necessity take that into account.

Oliver Letwin: I share the Home Secretary's desire for a sensitive policy. He and I have shared many views on the return of asylum seekers. Can he tell the House today how many asylum seekers entering this country from France have been returned to France under the Dublin convention since 1997?

David Blunkett: What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that last year 6,828 people were returned automatically to France under a process similar to the gentlemen's agreement mentioned in the Opposition motion to be debated shortly. That was 1,000 more than the previous year. I do not have the number returned under the Dublin convention, for the very reason that I have stated publicly on several occasions, which is that the Dublin convention—to which the Conservative Government agreed and were a party in 1990—has not worked. That is why we are attempting not only to renegotiate under what is now called Dublin mark 2, but to take steps of our own, because waiting for Godot will not get us very far.

Oliver Letwin: I welcome the Home Secretary's conversion to the view that the Dublin convention does not work. Does he agree that its failure to work probably partly explains the fact that the Home Office's expenditure on asylum support is likely to be £600 million more than was forecast?

David Blunkett: No, it does not.

Neil Gerrard: Will my right hon. Friend re-examine the question of the number of people who are refused asylum on the grounds of non- compliance? Generally, it is because they failed to return the statement of evidence form within an extremely brief period. Many people claim that they never had the form, or that they sent it back and the Home Office then lost it. It might appear efficient to make decisions in such a way, but in fact it leads to many unnecessary appeals and contributes to the inefficiency of the system. Will he consider extending the period in which people have to return those forms?

David Blunkett: I should like to ensure the availability of adequate and appropriate advice for fulfilling the obligation, and that induction centres—the first of which opened in Dover on 22 January, as I said in my statement on 29 October—are able to support and help those who seek asylum to complete the form more effectively. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no point in having masses of appeals that could have been resolved earlier and more effectively if the system had been right.

Sex Offences

Paul Holmes: When he intends to bring forward proposals following the report on the reform of sex offence laws "Setting the Boundaries"; and if he will make a statement.

Keith Bradley: Tackling sexual offending is a top priority for the Government. We intend to ensure that the legislative framework enables firm action to be taken against those who abuse others. We are actively considering the recommendations of the sex offences review to Government in the light of more than 700 responses received during the consultation period. We intend to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows, and I will place a short summary of our proposals in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as possible.

Paul Holmes: Is the Minister aware of the case in January in which the Crown Prosecution Service could not prosecute a man who had persuaded two 11-year-old girls to undress in front of him because he had not physically touched them? Do the Government intend to close that loophole in the law, and, if so, how urgently do they intend to introduce the necessary legislation?

Keith Bradley: I was as surprised as many Members about that loophole in the law. We want to ensure that the offences that we introduce are coherent and that they protect vulnerable people, particularly children. I am examining the loophole to ensure that the changes that we propose are coherent. We wish to tackle all possible attempts to abuse children.

Clive Soley: Will my right hon. Friend examine a letter that I wrote today to the Secretary of State—I suspect that it will end up on my right hon. Friend's desk—about the difficult and serious case of an assault on a child which has gone unpunished? I suspect that the offence will slip through the net because of proposals to reform sex offences legislation. When my right hon. Friend has read my letter, perhaps he will consider the possibility of linking the issue to the concept of dangerousness, which I know the Department is examining. There are a few abusers who will not otherwise fall easily into the categories that my right hon. Friend is considering.

Keith Bradley: I shall examine the case about which my hon. Friend has written. It is taking some time to come forward with our proposals because we received more than 700 detailed responses to the review. We are dealing with a complex area and we want to ensure, as far as we can, that all dangerous and violent sex offenders are covered by legislation, and that the sentencing policy that we bring forward, as a result of the Halliday review, is severe on the perpetrators of offences that we all abhor.

Julie Kirkbride: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the growing scare about child sex slavery in the United Kingdom, which has been more evident recently. It shames us all that the trade should take place in Britain. The Minister will be aware also that the police tell us that the trade is due to insufficient powers to deal with the merchants of this wicked activity. Given the urgency of the problem, would the Department consider kindly a private Member's Bill that sought exclusively to deal with the issue? If help could be given with drafting and the Department gave it a fair wind to ensure that it passed speedily through the House, it would deal with a dreadful nuisance that must be tackled.

Keith Bradley: Most important is that the proposals made in legislation are coherent and clear. We must bring forward a package of measures that are designed to tackle a range of issues, one of which the hon. Lady has mentioned. The awful issue to which she referred must be addressed. I want to ensure that the public understand and have confidence in the legislative framework. We must introduce the correct punishment to meet the crimes that are perpetrated. I shall always consider the appropriate vehicles through which to introduce legislation. If possible, it will be best to have a Government package of plans, which we can debate in the House. There has been an opportunity for all parties to contribute to the review, and I shall consider the hon. Lady's contribution.

Drug Abuse

Helen Jones: What support he is giving to parents whose children are addicted to drugs.

Bob Ainsworth: Support for the parents, carers and families of young people with drug problems is a crucial part of the national drug strategy. Information about the dangers of drugs and where to get help is routinely distributed to schools, GPs' surgeries and police stations. On 27 December 2001, we launched a campaign to raise awareness of the risks of drugs and to encourage parents and carers to use the national drugs helpline on 0800 776600 for reliable and credible information on the harm that drugs cause and the support that is available. Only three weeks into the campaign, the helpline has seen a significant increase in calls of over 20 per cent.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he accept that despite the progress that has been made, many parents find that their children are taking drugs? Those parents find it difficult to access support and treatment for their children. Even if they get them into treatment, they are put back into their communities to mix with those who got them on to drugs in the first place, without any further support being available.
	I urge my hon. Friend to examine closely representations made by the Footsteps project, which serves my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts), which set out the horror stories of some parents. Will he find time in his schedule to talk to parents and groups who represent children at risk, to learn what is happening at the sharp end from the users of services, rather than from those who set up the services?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right; parents have severe problems dealing with those issues, and many lack the confidence to engage with their children about drugs. Studies show that there is a significant reduction in the taking of dangerous drugs by children of parents who have had the confidence to have such conversations. I am aware of the work of Footsteps in Warrington, which is funded by the communities against drugs fund. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware, but Warrington is due to get another three posts, funded from a variety of sources, to provide information and support to parents and carers of young people in the near future. I should be happy to receive further information from her about the problems in the area, but I wish to make her aware of that additional funding coming on stream in Warrington.

David Cameron: Does the Minister agree that former addicts are often the best people to explain the dangers of drug abuse to children? He will not be aware of it, but I was in Wood Green school in my constituency this morning, sitting at the back of the class while Energy and Vision, a group of former addicts, explained the dangers of drug abuse; they were explaining, rather than preaching. Does the Minister agree that that is the right message and the right way to communicate it? What steps will he take to encourage such voluntary bodies?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman's premise is right; explaining is far more effective than preaching. We will try to engage any available talent to do that. People who have managed to rehabilitate themselves after serious drug offending and drug problems are often prepared to get involved in such campaigns and offer their time. We must try to make sure that we have in place facilities to enable people to make use of that volunteering.

Bill Tynan: Does my hon. Friend accept that many voluntary organisations that are providing a wonderful counselling service for parents find themselves strapped for cash, with little money to deliver the service required? Will he ensure that adequate financial support is given to voluntary organisations that provide a worthwhile service?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right; there is a problem, but there have been significant increases in the amount of money available. It takes time for services to come on stream. The Department of Health allocated an extra £5 million in 2001–02, and another £11 million in the next financial year, to provide treatment for young people with serious drug problems and support for their parents. Money is therefore becoming available but, as ever, there is much more that we could do.

Nick Hawkins: Despite what the Minister said about funding, how does he explain the fact that I have a letter from the deputy chief constable of Surrey, who says that in his role in the Surrey drug action team, he found that all the promises of new money made by the Government in 2000 have subsequently been undermined? First, a totally unexpected top-slicing meant that the team immediately had to cut £80,000 from the programmes that it funded. Then, last October, the team was told that year 2 and year 3 funding was under threat. It had been promised a 70 per cent. uplift, but was told that it was likely to be no more than 20 per cent. Senior police officers trying to lead the fight against drugs for the benefit of our children are finding that there is a huge difference between the Government's rhetoric and the reality on the ground, which is cut, cut, cut.

Bob Ainsworth: Sadly, in the short time in which I have been dealing with the hon. Gentleman, I have learned not to take at face value anything he says. I shall happily check what allegations have been made by his local police officer, and what allegations the hon. Gentleman has added to them, and I shall come back to him with a detailed reply. Over time, I have learned to do that.

Race Relations

Iain Luke: What measures he proposes to improve race relations and community cohesion.

Angela Eagle: The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 will be the biggest strengthening of the protections against racial discrimination in 30 years. The Government are working with the public sector to make it effective. On social cohesion, the Government are responding to the reports following last summer's disturbances to develop an active and inclusive vision of Britain, at both local and national level.

Iain Luke: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. I am sure that she welcomed, as I did, the 27 per cent. reduction in racially motivated incidents between 1995 and 1999 recorded in the British crime survey last year. Does she agree that the figure of 280,000 incidents recorded in 1999 is still too high? We should be doing all we can to encourage a multi-agency approach to ensure that this pernicious blight is banished from British society.

Angela Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend that racially motivated attacks are absolutely unacceptable. I know that the addition of the racially aggravated element in sentencing has been one of the success stories since the Lawrence report. I hope that the recent addition of religious motives for aggravated attacks will also help to tackle that pernicious problem.

Bob Spink: How do the Government propose to deal with discrimination based on religion? Is the Minister aware that a Muslim sheikh has been touring the country urging followers to kill Jews, for instance?

Angela Eagle: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was during our debates on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, but we tried to do something about that. The House disagreed, as did the Lords. If he is now saying that he disagrees with that, and that all those on the Opposition Front Bench and in the Conservative party are having a rethink, perhaps we can consider bringing the legislation back to the House.

David Winnick: Is it not a matter of deep regret that there is an allegedly Muslim priest touring Britain and promoting Nazi-type race hatred, calling for the killing of Jews and all infidels? Is not that a breach of the law on incitement to race hatred? Why are not the police taking any action? If that person has asked to live in Britain—apparently, he has applied to the Home Office—should not the response this week be, "No. Get out of the country as quickly as possible"?

Angela Eagle: I can assure my hon. Friend that the police are taking a very close look at the activities of that person. I ask my hon. Friend simply to watch this space.

Metropolitan Police (Funding)

John Cryer: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the resource allocation formula for the funding of the Metropolitan police.

Bob Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the final proposals for police grant 2002–03 on 30 January. The resource allocation formula is an internal distribution mechanism for the Metropolitan police and as such is a matter for the Commissioner and the Metropolitan police authority. My hon. Friend has been involved in the consultation and will know that a revision of the original formula is still being discussed by the Metropolitan police authority.

John Cryer: Although the resource allocation formula has given a small increase in my borough, Havering, in east London, and my hon. Friend is right to say that the review is continuing, the tiny increase is not nearly enough. Havering is affected by two factors. First, the town centre of Romford has the second biggest nightclub capacity in the entire south-east of England, outside the west end. Secondly, Havering is the second biggest borough in London and has the most green belt, which brings its own problems. Those two factors bring enormous pressures to bear on the uniformed force. In my hon. Friend's discussions with the Metropolitan police authority and with the Mayor, will he draw those factors to their attention and bring pressure on them to increase the uniformed presence in Havering?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend knows that there has been a substantial increase in recruitment to the Met. By the end of March 2003, the Metropolitan police service will have been allocated a total of 2,044 recruits from the resources of the crime fighting fund. I ask him to accept that it is very difficult for us to become involved in an internal review. It is right that there should be full consultation and that all genuine views and concerns are taken on board in deciding how exactly to place those police resources in the metropolitan area. As I said, I know that he has been involved and has represented his constituents, but I am not sure about the degree to which we should get involved from outside in the review or in the decision about where in the service those police resources need to be placed.

Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that there is a trend, which is particularly evident in this year's allocation, in which funding of the police is being significantly shifted on to the council tax payer? For example, is he aware that in the Metropolitan police area, the precept per head falling on the council tax payer has increased by 141 per cent. since 1997?

Bob Ainsworth: I am not sure that I do accept that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the significant increases that have gone into the Metropolitan police service and others through the crime fighting fund. Obviously, matters such as the setting of the precept and the total council tax impact of any decisions are for the authority and others to decide, and not for the Government.

Child Murders

Bob Russell: If he will publish the findings of monitoring by his Department of the number of child murders.

Beverley Hughes: Although violent crime generally, as measured by the British crime survey, has shown a reduction in recent years, the appalling crime of killing a child fluctuated between 96 and 143 cases a year in the five years up to 2000–01. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that statistics on such killings are published each year. Obviously, the Government are determined to try to bring about a permanent reduction in the number of such cases through a range of measures across government.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that broad reply, but surely she and the Government must be aware that the number of child murders perpetrated by family members has increased by 50 per cent. in the past year or so. Does she agree that a possible cause of that rapid increase is the cuts in the amounts made available to social services and the criticism and undermining of social workers? Will she have words with her ministerial colleagues to ensure that social services are properly funded and that social workers are given all the encouragement that they need?

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been an overall increase in child murders this year and that most of that rise is accounted for by perpetrators who are family members or who are known to the child. However, this is a single year, and as I said, the numbers fluctuate considerably, so it is far too early to conclude that this is not a temporary rise and that the level will not fall back again as it has in previous years.
	Certainly, the Government have done a great deal since 1997 to strengthen child protection procedures in the guidance "Working Together to Safeguard Children", and through the introduction of a new, robust and more consistent framework for assessment to try to identify circumstances in which children might be at risk within their family. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that the funding situation is directly related to the rise in numbers. All local authorities prioritise this area of work, notwithstanding the many calls on their budgets. None the less, following this year's rise, we will be watching the situation very closely.

Antisocial Behaviour Orders

Judy Mallaber: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders and how to extend their use.

Keith Bradley: Last Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced important proposals to increase the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders. They include extending the power to apply for ASBOs to the British Transport police and registered social landlords, introducing an interim ASBO that can be issued prior to a full hearing, extending the power to make ASBOs to county courts and allowing ASBOs to "travel" with the person when the behaviour is likely to be repeated elsewhere.
	We have also commissioned a review of ASBOs. Furthermore, every crime and disorder reduction partnership will have a co-ordinator to ensure that an effective strategy is in place to tackle antisocial behaviour.

Judy Mallaber: I welcome the proposals to improve the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders. In Amber Valley so far, one order has been taken out as apparently the only mechanism for tackling a long-standing case of antisocial behaviour, about which correspondence going back 10 years was passed on to me by my predecessor.
	Will my right hon. Friend also conduct a survey and review of the availability and training of the solicitors whom the responsible agencies can use to pursue ASBOs? It has been put to me that the agencies are inhibited by the fact that the police have only one solicitor who deals with civil litigation, and that a non-unitary district council has similarly limited legal resources.

Keith Bradley: Obviously, I am pleased that my hon. Friend welcomes the use of ASBOs. Hon. Members throughout the country have experienced cases of ASBOs tackling antisocial behaviour effectively. I am also pleased that she welcomes the review.
	My hon. Friend made an important point about legal resources. Although a separate survey will not be conducted on that, the review covers the legal resources of partner agencies to deal effectively with applications for ASBOs and the legal costs of those applications. It is important to consider the matter carefully. When the review is published, I hope that my hon. Friend will find some comfort in the responses that we received.

James Gray: We welcome the Home Secretary's announcement last week about the improvement of ASBOs. However, will not the Minister admit that it is too little, too late? The Government stated that they wanted 5,000 ASBOs a year to be used. In the past three years, only 486 orders have been taken out. The community policeman of the year, PC Anthony Sweeney of West Yorkshire police, said that they are unworkable. Are not the Government worried that even after the Home Secretary's announcement, ASBOs will simply be a bureaucratic waste of time and money?

Keith Bradley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman believes that ASBOs are a waste of time. I believe that they are welcome in our communities throughout the country as a new and effective tool for dealing with antisocial behaviour. The purpose of the proposals announced by the Home Secretary is to ensure that they become more comprehensive. We are looking at their operation to ensure that they are as effective and efficient as possible. I believe that the Government's general plans, for tackling antisocial behaviour, in which ASBOs play an important part, will continue to be welcomed. I have listened carefully to the Opposition's denigration of them.

Caroline Flint: I am pleased to say that in Doncaster the council has taken steps to establish an antisocial behaviour unit in conjunction with partners. The use of ASBOs is beginning to speed up through greater training. However, local magistrates and the youth offending team have told me that they could well use a secure unit in the Doncaster area for those 15 to 17-year-olds who are hard-core, persistent offenders. Will my right hon. Friend consider setting up secure units in places that would be better served by such provision locally? I suggest that Doncaster is one of those areas.

Keith Bradley: My hon. Friend is right that partnership working is the most effective and efficient use of ASBOs. A good relationship between local authorities, the police and the extra agencies that have been included in the proposals is the best way to promulgate good practice. In my constituency, the relationship between the local authority and the police has been effective in tackling some of the most persistent offenders.
	I shall consider further measures for tackling antisocial behaviour; we shall also examine sentencing policy in light of the Halliday review, and perhaps the extension of provisions such as intensive supervision and surveillance programme orders through the youth courts. I shall consider my hon. Friend's proposal for Doncaster carefully. We need firm, effective action to ensure that our communities live in peace and harmony.

Dominic Grieve: Is it altogether surprising that there should be such a low take-up of ASBOs when the evidence appears to be that the Government are very slow in making use of other powers that they have to deal with antisocial behaviour? Is it correct, for instance, that the Government have failed to implement section 53 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000? There are 100,000 people who are in breach of their probation, who could be prosecuted for committing two breaches of probation, often of an antisocial kind, and could be sent to prison.

Keith Bradley: Once again, we have an Opposition trying to undermine the measures that we have introduced to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime in our communities. Effective measures that have public support are constantly undermined by the Opposition. The provisions in the legislation that we have introduced will be rolled out to ensure the most effective use of the orders. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman listen more carefully to the Leader of the Opposition, who always urges a spirit of co-operation to try to tackle the problems in our communities. Once again, words and practice are completely at odds.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[10th Allotted Day]

Asylum Seekers

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Oliver Letwin: I beg to move,
	That this House deplores the failure of the Government over the past four years to negotiate with the Government of France on the re-application of the bilateral agreement on immigration to the case of asylum seekers; and calls on the Government to ensure a more equitable distribution within the EU of the responsibility for assessing and meeting the claims of potential refugees.
	I hope that the House will bear with us if we try a minor experiment. Opposition day debates have almost always been used for bringing the Government to account by criticising an aspect of the Government's record and seeking some defence and explanation. That is a useful part of the work of the House, but on this occasion we want to follow a different pattern. It is not our intention to point to Government failure, although there is some in this area, but to seek to explain the cause of the difficulties that the Government have encountered, and try to suggest, in a constructive spirit, how those might be remedied.
	This is an opportune moment to do that because the Home Secretary is about to publish, perhaps in the next few days, a White Paper on asylum and related matters, and it is our belief that, although some of the measures that he proposes are likely to prove effective and all are likely to be well intentioned, the package as a whole is very unlikely to achieve its aims, because it fails to address a huge lacuna in the current arrangements.
	These issues were brought before Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) in a notable debate in Westminster Hall on 29 January 2002, and have been discussed on and off in the back corridors of Whitehall for some years, so I pretend to no originality, but it is also the case that most of the country has not been aware of the cause of the greater part of the problem with which the Home Secretary is wrestling on asylum.
	Why was it only under this Government, who are perfectly well intentioned on asylum, that the issue suddenly attained such prominence? It was not the case that for the first time in recorded history there were many refugees and many people claiming refugee status. It is probably true that there has been something of an increase in the number of displaced persons during this Government's tenure, especially in Europe, owing to many causes of which the House is aware. However, that is by no means the largest part, or even a very significant part, of the explanation for the great rise in the number of those seeking asylum specifically in the UK.
	I do not think that there is any dispute between the Government and ourselves—indeed, the answers that the Home Secretary just gave me in Question Time reinforced that point, and it is evident to both sides of the House—that towards the end of 1997 the bilateral agreement between the UK and France, which had governed both immigration and asylum, fell away, or at least those parts of it that related to asylum fell away.
	I do not in the least seek to blame the Government for what happened. No doubt the Home Secretary will, rightly, point out that in the original bilateral agreement it was provided that at the inception of the Dublin convention those parts of the agreement would fall away. That was arranged by a Conservative Government, so no blame attaches to the present Government for the fact that shortly after they came to power, the bilateral agreement fell away.
	However, the Government have now been in power not for a few weeks or a few months, but for almost five years. In any event, we now need to look forward rather than back. The cause of the vast increase in the number of people seeking asylum in this country is almost undoubtedly the falling away of the bilateral agreement and its supersession by the Dublin convention.
	A moment or two ago, the Home Secretary answered my very specific question—about how many people coming from France and seeking asylum in the UK had been returned to France under the Dublin convention—by saying two things. I fully subscribe to one of them, namely that the Dublin convention is not working and he therefore does not know the answer to my question.
	Secondly, he said that a considerable number of people—rather more than 6,000—who had sought entry to the UK had been automatically returned to France. I do not doubt it, but what the Home Secretary was not at pains to point out is that those people were not seeking asylum but were other sorts of immigrants. Of course, the bilateral agreement with the French authorities, which was signed by a Conservative Government, continues to operate with regard to those who are not seeking asylum. The problem relates to those who are seeking asylum.
	Let me illustrate, in very broad orders of magnitude, the scale of the problem with which we are collectively dealing. The official statistics suggest that just over 90,000 people seek asylum in the UK annually. There are rather more than 30,000 people—about 5,000 more, I think—in a similar position in France, which is just over a third of the number here.
	The astonishing fact is that nobody knows how many of the people who seek asylum in the UK come directly or proximately from France. I do not believe that the Home Secretary is concealing any information; there is no published information that allows one to establish the figure exactly. However, estimates have been made, and I believe that there are figures for specific ports. So far as one can make out, about 30,000 people probably come into this country from France seeking asylum every year.
	If we subtract that figure of just over 30,000 from the just over 90,000 people who seek asylum in the UK, and add it to the 30,000 or so people who seek asylum in France, we come up with a surprising and illuminating result: by reinstating the effect of the bilateral agreement between the UK and France in respect of asylum, one could achieve a rough equalisation. I am not speaking in exact figures; I do not think that anybody knows those—I certainly do not. However, there would be a rough equalisation of the burden of dealing with asylum applications in France and the UK.
	In other words, roughly speaking, 60,000 people would be seeking asylum in each of the two countries, rather than the present figures of about 30,000 and about 90,000 respectively.

Brian Iddon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that English is now a predominant language, especially in the countries from which those people originate, plays an important part? Is he not presenting a rather simplistic argument?

Oliver Letwin: The strange fact is that the position that the hon. Gentleman correctly alludes to was already undoubtedly true before 1997. None of us can calculate the numbers exactly. There is no doubt that most of those who were seeking asylum before 1997 would have preferred to enter this country, partly on linguistic grounds. However, until about September 1997, if someone travelled from France, for example, to seek asylum in this country on linguistic or any other ground, under the bilateral agreement they were automatically returned—to use the Home Secretary's phrase—to France. That no longer obtains, however. There has been a significant shift in the way the system works and has worked since late 1997.
	The Home Secretary rightly said that the Dublin convention is not an adequate substitute. It does not work because, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), accepted in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on 29 January, it has proved quite impossible to establish that the first place in the EU that such people entered was France. The Dublin convention, which relies on the notion of the first place of entry, has not proved an adequate substitute for the bilateral agreement, and numbers have shot up.
	Barring some slight quibble about exact numbers, nothing that I have said so far is a major cause of dissension between ourselves and the Government. I suspect that the position that I have outlined is one with which the Home Secretary himself has wrestled, and that like me he would prefer the creation of something resembling the bilateral agreement. Indeed, in replying to the Westminster Hall debate, the Under-Secretary eloquently sketched those very problems, and was at pains to point out how far the Government have gone in negotiating with the French. She referred to negotiations about Sangatte and many other matters, and I have no doubt that the Government are worthily engaged in repeated discussions with the French.

Neil Gerrard: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is adopting a constructive tone, which has not always been struck in past debates on this subject, but does he really believe that we can deal with the problems associated with movements of people within Europe purely through bilateral agreements with France, or any other country? To make progress on this issue, we need to develop common systems that involve not just the UK and France, but other European countries. Such systems are already being discussed in the EU.

Oliver Letwin: The honest answer to the hon. Gentleman's reasonable question is no—I suffer from no such illusion. I am sure that a bilateral agreement with France is not a complete solution and many of our recommendations, and many of the proposals in the Home Secretary's White Paper, go beyond that. Moreover, there is undoubtedly a place for multilateral negotiation. However, unlike under the bilateral agreement, France now bears about one third of the burden borne by the UK. France is also totally out of kilter not just with the UK but with Germany, Italy and other EU countries. It is therefore reasonable to propose—as I said, I suspect the Home Secretary and I could agree on such a proposition—that the problems with which the Home Secretary and the country are wrestling would be vastly ameliorated if the bilateral agreement were reinstated.

Neil Gerrard: Does not the history of dealing with asylum issues and illegal entry by trying to plug a perceived loophole show that another route will be found? Unless we achieve multilateral agreements, no solutions will be found and people will simply move from place to place.

Oliver Letwin: There are facts of geography about which the hon. Gentleman and I can agree. France is rather near and rather large, and large numbers of people have always found their way there. A stubborn fact, difficult to ignore, is that when the bilateral agreement was in place, a significantly smaller number of people found their way into the United Kingdom seeking asylum and a rather larger number remained in, or returned to, France. The precise nature of those facts is difficult to pin down because the whole matter is shrouded in statistical obscurity, but the general outline is clear. I am not seeking to solve all problems in a trice by these means, but simply to solve a major part of the problem. That would be a constructive effort in itself.

Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even if there were to be a bilateral agreement, and there is an argument for that, it would be a small contribution to the wider issue? According to the migrant helpline in Dover, the numbers coming through the channel tunnel are going down. According to the figures that I was given when I was in Sangatte last Friday, 98 per cent. of those attempting to come from France to England in the Calais area are stopped in France, and only 2 per cent. are found as illegal asylum seekers here. Therefore, the reality is that about 2 per cent. of people might be sent back. Of those, many keep attempting to come here, so sending them back is not a solution.

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is right: it is not a solution in that it is not a complete solution. I do not think that he is right to speak purely of illegal efforts to enter this country. In many cases, we are talking about people residing in France who make an effort to enter this country, which may not, in itself, be illegal. None of us knows the exact numbers. As I said, the whole matter is shrouded in statistical obscurity. However, my suggestion could form a significant part of a solution. The hon. Gentleman is right to describe it as an advance and say that there is a case for it. As for whether, on reinstating the bilateral agreement, so much of the problem goes away that the rest of the Home Secretary's measures are enough to cure the problem, I do not speculate. However, it would be an advance if we could at least cure this part of the problem.
	I wish to address two points that have been raised by people who reject the idea of reinstating a bilateral agreement. Interestingly, neither was raised by the Under- Secretary in her response to the debate on 29 January, which suggests that, quite rightly, the Government do not place any emphasis on these arguments. However, I want to dispel them before they are raised in this debate.
	It has been argued that we cannot have a bilateral agreement because of the Dublin convention. The Under-Secretary was right to say on 29 January that that is a false argument. It is possible to have a bilateral agreement, notwithstanding the Dublin convention. It is possible not only in theory but in practice, as has been shown by Germany and Denmark, which have such an agreement in place. I accept that there are disanalogies as well as analogies between the Danish-German case and our own vis-à-vis France. However, the continued existence of the German-Danish bilateral agreement, never challenged, shows that it is possible to have such an agreement notwithstanding the Dublin convention. I think that we are agreed with Ministers on that point.
	The second argument is that it is not possible to renegotiate a bilateral agreement when it would be so advantageous for the UK and so disadvantageous for France, which seems to bear out the strength of my previous argument. This is where I take issue with the doomsayers. I accept that we cannot expect the Home Secretary to find himself one sunny morning in Paris, alongside his opposite number in the French Government, and, over a croissant and cup of coffee, emerge, without cost to the UK, with a new, glistening bilateral agreement that resolves the problem.

David Blunkett: Or a bottle of burgundy.

Oliver Letwin: Even a bottle of burgundy, as the Home Secretary says from a sedentary position, would not be sufficient to achieve this admirable result. I accept that the process of negotiation is difficult. What I do not accept is the proposition that because it is difficult, we should give up.
	If I believed that, I should have to disbelieve the entirety of the Government's rhetoric about their relationship with our European Union partners. I have heard it said repeatedly over the past few years that the point of the Government's strategy vis-à-vis our EU partners was that it had put the Government in a position to achieve successful outcomes to difficult negotiations because it would be in our partners' interests to do diplomatic deals with us in the knowledge that we would do deals with them. In short, we would be part of the club, obey the rules and be good citizens so that we could achieve things of use to our country.
	If ever an item would clearly be of use to our country, the bilateral agreement is one. If, therefore, there were ever a case, vis-à-vis a major European partner, for implementing the strategy on which the Government pride themselves, this is it. If the Foreign Office knew how to engage effectively in diplomacy, it would know what to trade and how to trade in order to achieve the desired result. It has, uncharitably, sometimes been alleged that just as the Department of Trade and Industry sponsors industry under the present Administration, and the Department for Education and Skills sponsors teachers, so the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sponsors foreigners. I do not for one moment believe that lamentable accusation. [Hon. Members: "Why not?"] In contrast to some of my hon. Friends, I am persuaded that the officials of the FCO and the Foreign Secretary—not least because he was a distinguished occupant not long ago of the Home Secretary's current office—are fully conversant with the fact that it is in our interest to achieve a renegotiated bilateral agreement. I imagine that they have all the skills necessary to identify the items—minor items, but significant to the Quai d'Orsay—that could be traded off for that desirable result.
	It is not necessary for the French Government to accept a new agreement. As the Home Secretary pointed out during Question Time, the bilateral agreement still exists and applies to cases that are not related to asylum. All that is necessary is the adjustment, by reinstatement of one sub-paragraph, of an existing bilateral agreement. That should not be beyond the ingenuity of the Foreign Office.
	My point is that if that action is not taken, the Home Secretary will produce his White Paper in good faith, we shall consider its proposals constructively and the country will hope that it will succeed. It is very likely, however, that it will turn out to be a car without an engine. A system that is under the greatest strain will not be able to implement its third system in just a few years—even the first of those systems has not yet been fully implemented—while the sheer number of applications continues at its present rate, largely because of the absence of the bilateral agreement. I am trying to provide the Home Secretary with a means to reduce the flow into the bathtub so that he may succeed in dealing with the water in the bath. That is a piece of constructive opposition, and I hope that the Home Secretary will take advantage of it.

Brian Iddon: How would the hon. Gentleman answer the criticism made of the original bilateral agreement, that those who had knowledge of English procedures and the language were able to stay here long enough to implement judicial processes that meant that they spent longer on British soil than on French, making the French reluctant to accept them back in a transfer?

Oliver Letwin: I answer that point in the words of the bilateral agreement. Incidentally, the agreement has sometimes been misrepresented as being a gentleman's agreement. It was nothing of the kind. [Hon. Members: "Oh?"] I intend no adverse comment on either of the signatories. It was signed by officials of the two states on 20 April 1995, and it spoke of:
	"Refusal of admission and removal within 24 hours of departure".
	That had exactly the automaticity of which the Home Secretary spoke so powerfully in the—irrelevant—case of those who are not seeking asylum. The very fact that the agreement works so well for those not seeking asylum—as the Home Secretary pointed out during Question Time—gives hope that it will again, as it did in the past, work well for those who are seeking asylum, precisely because of that speed.
	My closing comments also relate to a point that was made during Question Time. The Home Secretary has not so far tried to deny the assertion—I shall be the first to withdraw if he does deny it—founded on a document in my possession that appears to be leaked, that the initial estimate for expenditures on the asylum support system in the UK for 2001–02 will be about £1.09 billion. The document notes that
	"figures are estimates in advance of grant claims from local authorities. The allocation at the start of the year was £403 million, which was understood to be a provisional estimate."
	I quite understand that provisional estimates are never accurate. I accept that a variation of 10 per cent., or even 20 per cent., especially in a demand-led service of this kind, would be normal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), in his former role as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, might have been willing to grant that a 30 or 40 per cent. increase was tolerable in such circumstances. When we are dealing with an increase of 150 per cent. compared with the provisional figure, however, it looks as though some accident has occurred: it looks as though some carelessness has crept into the system.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does the hon. Gentleman think that that accident or carelessness is comparable with the accident or carelessness that occurred under the previous Government, when towns such as Slough were expected—with no prior warning—to maintain asylum seekers with no support at all from the Government? That decision put a £2 million hole in the budget of the council in the town that I represent.

Oliver Letwin: The figure seems large. However, I am more than prepared to accept that the asylum system has for a long time imposed serious strains on all Governments. I began the debate by saying that I did not seek, on this occasion, to use the Opposition day to prove a failure by the Government, but rather to suggest a way forward. I am willing to accept that the strains under which the present system of asylum, the lack of the bilateral agreement and the other deficiencies of structure have put the Home Office have made it well-nigh impossible for the Home Office to constrain the sums it spends—or even remotely accurately to predict them.
	During Question Time, the Home Secretary said that the lack of the bilateral agreement and the numbers coming to us from France were no part of the explanation of the under-prediction. It will be interesting to learn whether that is because he does not believe that the under-prediction actually occurred. Perhaps he will tell us that there is some other cause.
	My claim is simple. At present, neither the Home Secretary, for all the good will that he has displayed in this matter, nor his officials, for all the ingenuity that they are displaying and will display when the White Paper is implemented, are able to deal with the problems that we face as a nation, because the weight of the numbers and the speed of the arrival and the disproportion—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) want to intervene?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend refers to the weight of numbers. I was observing that it was not a description that would apply to the number of Labour MPs attending the debate.

Oliver Letwin: That is not a point that I would have made—although it is nevertheless strangely true.
	The disproportion between the burden being borne by this country and by our nearest and closest neighbour is so great that no group of men and women—however mightily they strive—is likely to conquer the problem. I hope, therefore, that rather than refuting and retorting, the Home Secretary will adopt what I believe to be the right posture in the face of such suggestions. I hope that he will entertain the possibility that he can persuade his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to get to work, with all the wiles for which our Foreign Office has long been known, to try to reinstate a bilateral agreement that, although it will not be a complete solution—I accept the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House—will none the less make a constructive effort to help us bear and solve a problem whose solution has for so long eluded us.

David Blunkett: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	'notes that co-operation with France on immigration and asylum issues is greater now than it has ever been; recognises that there has been an overall drop from 13,527 in 2000 to 10,927 in 2001, a drop of almost 20 per cent., in the number of people crossing illegally to the UK from France; further notes that bilateral co-operation continues to address the problem of asylum seekers in Northern France, that the French have made significant investment in police reinforcements in the region and judicial action has been taken against human traffickers and that, as a result of the imposition of the civil penalty, the number of clandestine entrants was reduced by 27 per cent. in 2001; and further notes that the previous Conservative Government left the asylum system in complete disarray, with local authorities left to pick up the pieces.'.
	I take it from the manner and tone of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) in this afternoon's presentation that he—rather than his chief of staff, whom I have read about this weekend—wrote his speech. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition entered the Chamber a minute or two ago, so I also take it that the hon. Gentleman's speech is a follow-through from his leader's speech last week, but presented in a different tone. I now understand the hon. Gentleman's tone, and I like it. In fact, on Friday at Cardiff, I said, "You are awful, but I like you." Dick Emery used to say that, and the phrase seemed to fit very well.

Iain Duncan Smith: He used to get dressed up.

David Blunkett: I am not going to do that even for my friend, the Leader of the Opposition—even though The Mirror reported that we dined together. We dined during the general election campaign at a secret meeting in North Yorkshire. We met, had a buffet supper and then debated on Radio 4's "Any Questions", and we both enjoyed it very much. At that moment, I thought that if one lad from North Yorkshire fails, this lad will succeed in leading the Tory party, but we have got nothing to worry about. That is what I thought at the time, and nothing has disabused me of it since.
	We are debating an interesting issue: putting Britain first. I think that that was the thrust of the Leader of the Opposition's speech last week, so this debate is a follow-through. I am pleased that we are debating the issue this afternoon because this happens to be the day that the French Government have implemented legislation, which they had to push through their Parliament, known as the implementation of domestic juxtaposed controls at Paris. We already have juxtaposed checks in London and Paris because they were imposed when the channel tunnel opened, but those using the domestic rail route from Paris to Calais did not have to be checked by British immigration officials. As a consequence, people with domestic tickets used that loophole to stay on the train and travel through the tunnel. The British Government pressed the French to legislate; they had to change their law.
	I want the House to consider what would have happened if the French Government had requested us to alter our internal ticketing and travel arrangements so that people travelling from London to Dover had to go through French passport and immigration controls just to be able to get to Dover, not France. The mirror image of that has been imposed by the French today, having legislated during the autumn. We should get into perspective what the French are prepared, or not prepared, to do.
	Given the tone of the hon. Gentleman's introduction, I shall be honest with him. Who believes that we will achieve a major change in French immigration policy in the immediate run-up to the presidential and Assembly elections in April and June? I am prepared to have a go and ask—I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will join me—President Chirac not to make immigration an issue in the French presidential elections. If he is prepared to do that, we can stand four-square together, and we can get somewhere. The French Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior and Madame Guigou, the Minister with responsibility for the encampments and the accommodation, would be in a much better position—would they not?—to respond to our approaches.
	I would obviously also have to take into account the very different situation that has existed in France over the years and that the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly knows about: the tolerated illegal presence. Part of renegotiating the Dublin agreement involves ensuring that that state of affairs does not exist. For those who are not totally familiar with the issue, the problem is that the position in France is unlike that in Britain. If the people at an encampment such as Sangatte seek to move on to claim asylum elsewhere and do not claim asylum in France, they are not arrested or removed. That policy goes back a long way in France and, as the hon. Gentleman said about another front, the position is not the same in Germany, Italy or most other European countries. Tolerated illegal presence means that people are not claiming asylum in France.
	That point is relevant because of the agreement that Germany and Denmark reached in Dublin. It relates to those people who tried to claim asylum in Germany but failed and who then tried to move across the border to Denmark to claim asylum there. However, we are faced with a very different situation. We cannot persuade people to claim asylum in France for love or money. We have promised them free Burgundy, sunshine and all sorts of other things, but they will not do so.
	With the best will in the world, I cannot compel the French Government to force potential asylum seekers to claim asylum in France. However, I can make it clear to the French Government that if asylum seekers refuse to claim asylum in France, they are tolerating an illegal presence. Under Dublin II, as it has become known, we need to be able to enforce the same approach across Europe, so that those who refuse to seek asylum in the country in which they are illegally present are removed to the place from where they came.
	Holding this debate today is interesting, not least because I have had to do my homework on it. I always welcome that, as I did when I was the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Doing our homework is good for us, and it enables us to enlighten others, such as the avid readers of Hansard across the country waiting for our every word to dribble out on the web.

Simon Hughes: I too welcome this debate, as I did last Tuesday's debate with the Under-Secretary. That too was a good-natured event that sought the truth.
	Will the Home Secretary answer two questions to which I do not know the answers? First, apart from the agreement between Germany and Denmark—we know about that—is he aware of any other bilateral conventions between European Union countries that deal with people who have sought asylum and moved, or not moved, on? Secondly, how far have the discussions that the EU Commission initiated in September proceeded? They were an attempt to reach a more universal EU-wide agreement that would not rely on bilateral arrangements. Answers to those questions would provide relevant background information.

David Blunkett: First, I am aware of no other countries that have such an agreement—and probably for the reasons that I have just enunciated. Secondly, the Commission set up a working party that continues to meet. We hope that, under the Spanish presidency, the process will be accelerated because Spain, like us, has a particular interest in this issue. Many people enter Spain from Morocco and north Africa, and Spain also wants a more rational and sensible Europe-wide agreement. Whatever the differences between me and Conservative Members, we all know and believe in our hearts that that is a sensible way forward. I hope that in future some sense will emerge.
	I shall return to the well presented questions that arose after the Dublin agreement of 1990. There was a so-called gentleman's agreement between 1995 and 1997, but the difficulty was not that there was not reasonable intent, but that the time scales, as enunciated by the hon. Member for West Dorset, were very tight. People had to be turned back literally overnight. A difficulty arose before the gentleman's agreement because of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 and the wonderful terms in it, such as "statutory suspensive appeal", that related to whether people could exercise their right of appeal.
	The Home Secretary tried to change the law in 1996, but as experts in this field will recall, he had difficulties with judges over withdrawal of benefits. The courts ruled that the National Assistance Act 1948 requires support to be given. As local authorities had become the conduit for that support, we decided to provide a more rational way of providing it by establishing the National Asylum Support Service. Incidentally, the local authority grant has grown over the years and is now £500 million, which is a tremendous amount of money.
	The Government not only ran into problems with the courts in 1996 but had problems with my favourite legal ruse, judicial review. Having agreed to set aside the 1993 Act, they decided to have a judicial review of the removal of asylum seekers, thereby delaying deportation, a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) alluded. People were therefore able to stay in this country longer than they had in France and were entitled to claim asylum here.

Julian Brazier: Surely the Home Secretary accepts that the legal difficulties to which he refers occurred at the very end of the last Conservative Government. His party has been in power for five years. Surely he and his predecessor should have found a way to address that gap in the law which, as he rightly says, was generated by judges perhaps over-reaching their authority.

David Blunkett: That is an interesting observation. When we debated the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, I suggested that judicial review was used inappropriately, and we had an interesting discussion on whether the Special Immigration Appeals Commission should become a court of superior record. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House were deeply exercised by my concerns about judicial review. I suspect that we will return to that subject in the months and years to come because judicial review has been used over the past 20 years to thwart Parliament's decisions. There is no question about that. I look forward to receiving support from all quarters of the House if we think it necessary to introduce measures to clarify the situation and make the will of Parliament clear. The important consideration is whether the system in operation is fair and reasonable. It cannot be used simply to build in delays that frustrate the will of Parliament and therefore the democratic will of the country. That is an interesting test of what we need to do.
	Of course there are problems, such as whether people are claiming asylum in France. If they are trying to get into this country, however, we have the problem of turning them around fast enough when they make a claim. As I said at Question Time, last year we sent back to France more than 6,800 people who, for a variety of reasons, either did not immediately claim asylum or did not have a substantive claim. The moment that someone claims asylum, they become part of the process.
	It is interesting to consider how many people are coming through the tunnel or crossing the channel, and whether the number poses a serious problem. It is a worry, not least to a Home Secretary returning from his summer holiday. For example, the Daily Express—I do not want to pick on it; after all, it has only picked on me every other day since 10 June—highlights day after day the hordes of people who are supposed to be entering our country through the tunnel. What is actually happening is that they are not getting through, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made clear. The visual signs in August and September, whether by photograph or television, vividly demonstrated the difficulty. At Christmas, 500 people stormed the barbed wire trying to get through, but they did not get through. Measures have been taken to help with that, and to help cross-channel carriers on the ferries.

Anne McIntosh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as Eurotunnel's attempts to reopen the route have failed on each occasion, the lives of many asylum seekers have been put at risk, and that freight carriers in the Vale of York and elsewhere in the country are being hugely disadvantaged because trains are to be checked only between 9 pm and 3 am? The escalation of the asylum seeker problem has ramifications for the transport industry as well as for his Department.

David Blunkett: I am painfully aware of that. The measures that I announced on 19 September involved co-operation with those operating on the French side of the tunnel and the ports—working not only with Eurotunnel, for instance, but with SNCF and English, Welsh and Scottish Railways—to see whether we can assist in advance security measures and agree the steps that need to be taken.
	I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing me to this point in my speech more speedily than I otherwise would have reached it. I am pleased to say that, after more than four months since a civil penalty was imposed on Eurotunnel, and owing to the measures that it has implemented and the dramatic fall in the number of people getting through illegally, we are lifting the civil penalty as from this afternoon. We will do so for SNCF for similar reasons, and we have withdrawn any claim concerning EWS, which we accept is not legally liable for its efforts.
	That has been achieved because enormous strides have been taken. We want Eurotunnel and others to be able concentrate their time and resources on ensuring that they can operate commercially and effectively and on continuing to take with us the rigorous steps that have been taken. That illustrates that, as with SNCF and the French, we will reciprocate where there is co-operation, as with the juxtaposed checks at Paris that will operate from today.
	A number of things are moving and there is improvement, but as I said to Elisabeth Guigou, there will be no progress until Sangatte is closed and no alternative is opened along the coast. She accepts, and indicated publicly that she had not advocated, and will not advocate, a further Sangatte in the Pas-de-Calais area, and that the long-term objective must be to close Sangatte. I believe that the short-term objective must be to close it, and we need to consider how we can do that, now or following the presidential and assembly elections, in a meaningful way.
	All that leads me to believe that the problem is Europe-wide and international and that it needs to be set in the context of more widely managed migration and nationality policy and not simply asylum. We need a reasonable and rational debate. I therefore welcome the tone adopted by the shadow Home Secretary. In response to my statement on 29 October, he put his position in the form of questions. I failed to acknowledge all 15 of them, but I acknowledge now that he is entirely right to believe that I would accept that he is an honourable man and that the answers to most of the questions were yes. I believe that when we debate the White Paper the response will be similarly balanced.

Gregory Barker: Does the Home Secretary accept that asylum seekers will keep on coming until the chaos of their processing is sorted out? Last month, two young Afghan lads came to see me at my surgery in Battle to say that they had arrived separately and applied for asylum in November 1999—one had paid $10,000 to be smuggled into the country on a lorry—but that more than two years later, they had yet to receive their first Home Office interview. For more than two years, they have been left in limbo, the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, unable to work, and a burden on the taxpayer. Whether they stay or go, it is in no one's interest—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

David Blunkett: That sounds like an Adjournment debate to me, but one that I would rather not inflict on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I suggest that we take up the problem and do something about it. All hon. Members must recognise that I would have to be out of my mind not to want to change the administration and improve the effectiveness and operations of my Department's immigration and nationality directorate. I am determined to do so because, as I said last week, the Home Secretary is responsible and accountable for the actions of the thousands of people whom we employ. I am determined to get the matter sorted, and the system that we are to establish will help those people to do that.
	That in no way undermines any of the points that have been made. We face a major challenge and we need to get Europe-wide agreement. In the meantime, we have to adopt rigorous measures ourselves to build trust and confidence in this country, and we need to ensure that our response is reasonable.

Jim Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend give us some idea of what progress is being made with our European partners other than France?

David Blunkett: I believe that there is a new spirit in the European Union's perception of immigration and asylum issues. In part, the desire to co-operate to deal with the threat of international terrorism has accelerated people's understanding of the need to co-operate on these issues. In part, global changes are having a major impact. The ramifications of the Taliban's fall have started a chain reaction that affects us all and that none can escape. The boat people trying to get to Australia and the changes in immigration law in that country and others illustrate that impact. We have a common purpose of trying to ensure that we get our systems right.
	There are no more countries to which we can pass people on; it is therefore inevitable that we will have to have robust border controls. We need to recognise the implications of that. I hope that we will have got the balance right when the White Paper is published. However, if the spirit of the shadow Home Secretary's approach at the end of October and again today is indicative of future debates, although the issue—not least the effectiveness of the policies that I introduce—will never be taken out of politics, we might be able to have a rational debate. Although his history is inaccurate and the solution that he seeks is therefore not immediately attainable, at least we have had a rational debate today. 4.23 pm

Simon Hughes: I welcome the debate and its constructive and rational tone, which I intend to do nothing to disrupt. I welcomed equally the similar debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) in Westminster Hall last Tuesday. I hope that the Home Secretary agrees that that was a constructive and interesting aperitif to today's debate as well.
	The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is aware of my respect for him, but I am amused by the way in which renegotiation of the bilateral agreement between Britain and France, which appeared to be a Back-Bench policy last Tuesday, moved quickly on Wednesday and Thursday to become a Front-Bench policy that has now been aired in debate today. I congratulate the Conservatives on the speed of their response to their right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. Although entirely proper, the argument is not one that I had heard before last Tuesday in Westminster Hall.

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to engage in a piece of honesty, which I shall perhaps regret later. The argument has been recent because we only recently asked ourselves, "Why did all this start going so terribly wrong shortly after the disappearance of the Conservative Government?" We came to the conclusion that it was not likely to be that fact which brought about the consequences, so we looked for other facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) must take the credit for raising the issue in the first place.

Simon Hughes: Let me continue to be honest, and, I hope, courteous to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who is much respected for his expertise and knowledge. We greatly appreciate his contributions. There is nothing wrong. We are trying, too, to find factual explanations and to be constructive. I hope that now, when we get the White Paper and during the debates between then and the Bill, there can be the best possible answers to these difficult international questions.
	I have some other introductory words for the Home Secretary. I welcome, but I am sure not nearly as much as Eurotunnel or the other operators, the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman a short while ago of the withdrawal of the civil penalty. If I may say so, that is a proper reward and a proper response. Having expended quite a lot of effort over the past six months informing myself of the facts, I believe that considerable efforts have been made and millions of pounds invested, not least by Eurotunnel, to try to help the authorities on both sides, as well Eurotunnel itself, to deal with the clear difficulty of trying to prevent people moving illegally from France to the United Kingdom.
	I do not want to repeat verbatim or in general the speech that I made in Westminster Hall on Tuesday. I shall however say a few words about the background before I turn to the foreground.
	I was extremely helped by the time that I spent on Friday morning and Friday afternoon, only three days ago, in Sangatte and Calais, with the Red Cross, with its camp director and with staff. I had the opportunity to talk to asylum seekers, or would-be asylum seekers, or migrants in the camp, of whom there were many.
	Secondly, I had the opportunity to talk to representatives of Eurotunnel on their site. I have talked to them in this place, but I was able to talk to them on site and to see the site itself. I spent some time with the company's officials and employees as vehicles were being checked. Like every other day, the checks revealed that people were trying illegally to get through. That happened last Friday morning, and those involved were intercepted by the twin efforts of Eurotunnel staff, who first engaged in electronic video imaging of vehicles and then a carbon dioxide test to determine whether humans were in the vehicles in question. In other words, there is a double check. That resulted in a number of people being found, even in the earlier hours of Friday morning before I had arrived. They were handed over to the authorities and made no further progress.
	We must see the issue in the context of the pattern of refugees and asylum seekers and their movements throughout the world. For those who follow these debates—mercifully, there are quite a few—the most useful compendium that I have found is a large volume, which I often carry with me on these occasions, which is published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Oxford University Press. It sets out the state of the world's refugees and provides all the figures from 1950 to 2000. It shows that patterns of migration change; the countries from which people come change too.
	The publication makes the telling point that, of about 12 million people who are refugees, most of them are near where they fled from. Most of them are refugees not in the rich north-west of Europe but in poor parts of the world—Pakistan, if they fled from Afghanistan, or central Africa if they fled from other countries in central Africa. When we confront these issues, we must remember how relatively few people make their way to the shores of Britain, or seek to come to Britain at all.
	If we compare the number of people who apply for entry with the wealth of the country concerned, we are about 77th in the league table. If we take the number of people who seek to come to a country relative to its population, in terms of the European Union, we are about seventh, eighth or ninth. It is true that in recent years the numbers of people who have sought to come to the United Kingdom have increased. However, they have not grown without interruption over the past decade. They grew in the first part of the 1990s and then the numbers fell. They grew again and then again they declined, and they have now grown significantly in the past few years.
	Although we have not seen a final version of last year's figures, in each of the last couple of years, about 90,000 people have sought to come to this country. The obvious next question is: how many have had their applications granted? The figures are not insignificant. Whatever the arguments about the many people who are not asylum seekers but economic migrants—the Home Secretary was right to say that, to be honest, almost everybody falls into one category or the other—if they are not asylum seekers, they are still seeking to better themselves, so it is right that the Government should think of ways of giving them a proper channel to apply to go through on the basis of economic opportunity. But in 2000, the last full year for which figures are available, 31 per cent. of asylum seekers had their applications granted and a further 18 per cent. had applications granted on appeal. So of those who arrived and put a case, just short of 50 per cent. of them, although the figure has been lower and occasionally higher, have had their case accepted by authorities.
	I therefore hope that our debate will acknowledge that many of those people make a good case to come here and are fleeing awful circumstances. As a constituency MP, I have heard about enough awful circumstances from people from Sierra Leone whose families have been brutally murdered, as well as from people from Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Afghanistan and the middle east. Unless someone does our sort of job, or works with those people regularly, they would not understand that, unless we come to the debate with compassion and humanity, we are not doing our job properly as parliamentarians. I hope that people outside, including some of those who write for national daily papers, have as much interest in presenting that side of the story as they do in presenting the somewhat distorted picture of people trying to break through and come illegally to the United Kingdom.
	One other preliminary point—[Interruption.] I heard the Home Secretary. I beg his pardon; one other linked point is that it is imperative that we seek—and I hope that the Bill to be introduced after the White Paper will do so—first, to provide a way for people who want to come here as economic migrants to put a case; and secondly, to provide a route for asylum seekers who reach the European Union to put their case when they get here. I agree that the Dublin convention, which may have been conceived with the best intentions, has failed, for obvious reasons. If somebody first comes to the attention of the authorities in, for example, northern France, it is unlikely that they will know exactly where they entered the EU and which was the first country in which they arrived. Even if they knew, they might not tell the authorities; and if they did tell them, they would probably not have any papers to confirm it. The theory that they could be sent back to the country in which they first arrived is unlikely ever to work in practice.
	The arrangements are also nonsense because, by definition, most people arrive across the landmass from the east and the south; enforcing them would put all the burden on Greece, Austria and Germany, and very little on other countries to the west. That international issue is sometimes created by European migration—for example, owing to civil war in the former Yugoslavia—and sometimes by events like the terrible troubles in Afghanistan; but we need to address it collectively so that we share the burden responsibly. We therefore endorse the reference to that aim in the Conservative motion; indeed, we adopted it in our amendment, and it is a shared European objective. Generally, the number of people applying in France appears to be going up; the number applying in Britain may be going up too. In any event, we must realise that we are in this together.
	The Home Secretary is of course right that it is probably more likely that agreements with the French, or agreements to which the French will be party, will be made after the two sets of elections than before. We are political realists. Immigration issues register quite high in domestic politics, for obvious reasons, so we will probably have to wait until after the presidential and parliamentary assembly elections in the spring and early summer, and until the new Administration have the confidence to answer such questions anew.
	In the light of my experience last Friday, I have five practical suggestions. My experience at Sangatte confirmed that it is not a holiday camp: it is not luxurious. It is a completely unheated hangar, in which there are twice as many people as there are beds, and in which there are mainly men aged between 16 and 30, but a considerable number of women, teenagers and children also. They queue for hours for a shower. The hot water is on for about four hours a day—two hours in the morning and two in the evening. The people queue for many hours for their two meals a day. There is one small television, which broadcasts in French. I did not see a single newspaper, magazine or piece of educative material.
	I had conversations with some of the people there—all of whom, as it happens, come from Afghanistan—who spoke English; the majority do not. They made it clear to me, first, that they left Afghanistan because at the time the country was extremely disrupted and had a history of almost 25 years of war; secondly, that they left with the support of their families, because their families wanted them to escape and to better themselves; and thirdly, that although they understood that things had settled in Afghanistan, they were unlikely to believe, about a month after the interim Government took office, that there was in place the stable peace that they hoped for, given that all the other stable peaces for which they had hoped over the past 25 years had been false dawns.
	We cannot persuade people to go back the minute peace comes to a country or part of a country. It is just not a credible argument that things will not be as bad again if they go home. A belief that we can immediately say, "If you come from Afghanistan, you will all now feel comfortable about going back", struck me as an unrealistic option. It might be much more realistic in the medium or long term, but as of today, this month and next month, very little in the world will persuade those people that they ought to go home.
	Secondly—the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) made a similar point—when I asked the people how they had come to Europe, most said that they had paid about $10,000. Most had put themselves in the hands of the traffickers. Most of them chose to say that they wanted to go to the UK, either because, from their own information back in Afghanistan or wherever else they believed that that would be the best place—with the highest principles, respect for human rights, opportunities to work and decent treatment—or because, having listened to the World Service and so on, they spoke English and felt more comfortable with the language than with any other.
	Those were practical reasons, but I asked people whether, if Denmark, Germany, France or another country offered them the same prospects, they would consider going there, and many said yes. I suggest to the Home Secretary, and I will suggest to the French ambassador when I see him next—I hope to see him again soon—that the most immediately useful step would be to establish an education and information programme at Sangatte, to give people the facts about what is happening in the countries from which they come, about the options for them now, and about what would happen to their case if they came to the UK. Many of them ought to know that even if they came, their case might be unlikely to succeed.
	If, in the two hours I spent speaking to people at Sangatte, I was able to begin a dialogue which, I think, was effective in sharing some information, surely such an information flow could be provided on a regular basis. Certainly, the French Government have principal responsibility. The Red Cross is happy to facilitate it, and I would hope that other EU Governments will be able to help.
	Thirdly, no one has apparently done objective research—so the director told me—into the routes, the motivation of the people coming and so on. A few journalists have asked a few questions, but nobody has checked the facts which, as the hon. Member for West Dorset reminded us, often are not known. There ought to be some scientific random sampling of the people at Sangatte now, so that we can find out where they are coming from and who is bringing them, and so that we can deal with some of the causes of their being there.

Ann Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it may be a good idea to ask asylum seekers precisely those questions? Should we not ask them who brought them here and try to find out who the traffickers are? Perhaps we could persuade them by saying, "Look, if you tell us, you may have a better chance of getting here." I know that that approach is a bit hard, but it is so important to find out who is making all the money that we should perhaps tie consent to the giving of information.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady raises a perfectly proper question. Indeed, I asked such questions myself. My understanding is that many of the traffickers come from eastern Europe. They are around and about in northern France and shuttle between there and elsewhere regularly. Certainly, they should be picked up by the authorities on the basis of such information, where that is possible.
	One of the things that came across very clearly is that the showing of a video to try to dissuade people from attempting illegally to cross the channel was a complete disaster. It failed for two obvious reasons. First, I understand it included images of the white cliffs of Dover, which made coming here even more appealing instead of putting people off. Secondly, it showed people trying to break into vehicles, which gave ideas about how to do so. No wonder it did not succeed in putting anybody off, but had the reverse effect. Everybody told me that the last thing we should do is go down that road again. People with authority and experience are needed to talk to those who are waiting individually in order to persuade them and offer options for the way forward.
	My judgment is that Sangatte will probably not close in the very near future, for reasons that have been tested in the French courts. The camp probably should not be located where it is; it is within sight of the channel and the ferries are visible from it. I understand that that is an incentive for people to leave. However, there is no way on earth that the safeguards that Eurotunnel and others have introduced—they now pick up and stop 98 per cent. of people who are trying illegally to come through the tunnel—can be perfect. I spoke to people and I know that the evidence shows that, if a fence is built 2 km from the coast, people will come in 2.5 km from the coast, and the problem will merely be pushed back.
	Some 70 per cent. of all freight coming through the tunnel is not container freight, but is open-sided, so people can get in at some stage. It will probably happen at an overnight stop. Most lorry drivers do not know what has happened. Most people are picked up and dealt with, but they will try again, as in their heads is the intention to try to come to Britain. We know the consequences. Most of them do not succeed and terrible injury and occasional death occur in the process. If and when Sangatte closes, we need instead several accommodation centres in and around Europe of the sort that the Government are proposing for this country to deal with the flows of people. The Home Secretary is absolutely right that that there is such a need on the southern Spanish coast, where hordes of people come into the country from the straits of Tangier and north Africa. The Spanish authorities cannot handle those people. Frankly, they process them and turn them out on to the streets of Spain the following day.
	Finally—I have just asked the Home Secretary to take advice and I am very happy to contribute further—I come to a very effective point that was put to me by the director of the Red Cross centre at Sangatte. None of these people has any status at all in the world. If somebody is a refugee, they will have a passport saying that that is their status, but people who are seekers of asylum have no status. If we were to expect them to have some obligations in return for our giving them a status and papers, we would at a stroke take them out of the hands of the traffickers—the only people with whom they currently have a status—and put them into the hands of a system that could deal with them. I do not claim that that is my idea, but it struck me as an extremely telling point. If we could recognise people as wanting to be either asylum seekers or economic migrants—and if they could put the case for being either—we would have a chance of getting them into the system and processing them. Yes, in some cases, when peace has returned after a decent interval, whether in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone or—let us pray—Sri Lanka, they would have to go back, but a proper interval has to be allowed to ensure that that peace has been tested.

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of interesting points, but will he address the one central point before he concludes his speech? Is his position and that of the Liberal Democrats that we should use some of our negotiating capital in Europe to get a bilateral agreement with France for the return of asylum seekers?

Simon Hughes: That is a perfectly proper question, and I shall end with a reply to it. I have nothing against trying a bilateral agreement. However, as I said in the recent debate in Westminster Hall, I do not believe that it is the way forward, not for any great theological reasons but because it simply passes the problem down the line or returns to France people who will try to come back again for the reasons that I gave earlier.
	In northern Europe, the Schengen agreement means that there are no border controls and people do not therefore wait at other frontiers. They wait near the channel because we have border controls; Liberal Democrats, like the Conservatives, are in favour of retaining them. However, it means that the problem appears locally, at our frontiers, and nowhere else. Sending people back to France will simply lead to recycling, because they will not disappear. Even if the French could find out whence they entered France, we would simply pass the problem to somewhere else, such as Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium or Luxembourg.
	I understand the argument that a bilateral agreement may not do any harm in the short term, but we need a Europe-wide solution as soon as possible. I have tried to offer some practical suggestions about what to do now, such as starting to educate people who get to the edge of the frontiers around the United Kingdom so that they understand the options. We should then deal with them humanely and fairly and help all those who have spent millions of pounds building their fences to realise that all the fences in the world do not change the aspirations of people who have paid $10,000 and travelled from Afghanistan to Calais. Telling such people that they cannot go any further will not persuade them that their journey should end and that they should return home.

Shona McIsaac: I apologise to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for missing some of his opening remarks. I welcome the measured and reasonable tone of the debate. I am sorry to say that the race card was played in the general election campaign, so it is gratifying that pejorative terms such as "bogus asylum seekers" have not been used in today's debate. When people use such terms, and make asylum deeply party political, the only beneficiary is the British National party. There was evidence of that in my constituency in the general election campaign, when race and immigration were raised. I therefore welcome the change in the tone of our debates since the hon. Gentleman took over as shadow Home Secretary.
	The system has difficulties, many of which were acknowledged in the opening speeches and many of which occur in and around Calais because of Sangatte. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that his ultimate goal is the centre's closure, because its existence means that people congregate at the closest crossing point to the United Kingdom.
	I represent a port area. We often talk about Dover and Calais, but I represent Immingham, one of the busiest container ports in Britain. Grimsby is nearby, and Hull is across the river. A huge amount of container traffic comes to Britain via the Netherlands and other countries. We often overlook the problems that are perpetuated at all the gateways to the United Kingdom, not only at Calais. I therefore believe that the debate should move beyond France, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said. It is too easy to point the finger at our nearest neighbour, and it is not fair. The Government have been doing their best in difficult circumstances.
	Our close relations with the French have paid off in some respects. We should examine the figures and get away from the screaming headlines about floods of immigrants and the pictures of 500 people storming the tunnel. Between 2000 and 2001, the figures show about a 20 per cent. drop in the number of people crossing illegally to the United Kingdom from France. They also show that about 6,000 people were refused entry and returned to France. It is unfair to cite France as the key to all the problems. There are problems with Sangatte, but France is trying to provide solutions.
	We need tighter controls at Eurostar stations and more UK immigration officers in France, and we must pursue the facilitators and racketeers, mainly from eastern Europe, who congregate in Sangatte and use that route to facilitate the prostitution of very young girls from eastern Europe in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.

Ann Cryer: Trafficking in young women for the purpose of prostitution was debated at length in the Council of Europe two weeks ago. Many of the people who enter the country in the backs of lorries and never seek to legitimise their position are women. Some drift into prostitution, while for many that is part of the deal, although they are not told that beforehand. Many others go and work effectively as slave labour, thereby putting employers who pay at least the minimum wage—I am talking here not about prostitution but about legitimate businesses—out of business. Often, those women owe the traffickers a great deal of money and are forced to repay it by working in slave workshops.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Many of the women who end up working as prostitutes for many years are not aware that that is the fate that awaits them when they agree to pay the traffickers many thousands of pounds to take them to western Europe. That is all the more horrific when we consider the age of some of those involved—girls of 13 and 14.

Simon Hughes: To reinforce what the hon. Lady said about numbers, figures released on Friday show that in January 93 people got through to the UK, but 3,985 people were arrested on the site in northern France and a further 592 were uncovered by the carbon dioxide method of detection. Very many people are stopped, and very few manage to get through the system.

Shona McIsaac: I am grateful for those up-to-date figures. We must maintain a balance. The measures that the French have taken are not perfect and more needs to be done, especially in Sangatte, but they have prevented many clandestines from entering the UK.
	The figures for clandestine entrants arriving in the freight shuttle wagons reveal a steady decline. In July 2001, 808 people entered in that way; in October, 133 did so, but by November the figure had fallen to only 40. We have worked with the French authorities, and the action that the French have taken has led to some reduction.
	Legislation ensures that all passengers on Eurostar trains, whatever their destination, have to pass through UK immigration controls before boarding. That is another vital aspect of the debate.
	As I have been trying to demonstrate, I disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for West Dorset that appeared in the paper about France being the key, and the core of all our asylum problems. France is a link in an international chain, and the problems are more complex than some people think.
	We have already mentioned the people traffickers, who also often deal in prostitution. One reason why they entered that business is that there is big money to be made from it, and the penalties for people trafficking are far lower than those for other types of smuggling, such as smuggling drugs or guns.
	We must do something about the organised gangs involved in people trafficking. I do not know whether we would have to do that via Europol, or what methods we would have to use, because few of the gangs that operate in Europe and prey on people at Sangatte seem to be based in the UK.
	We must look at the pattern of people arriving in France and trying to get to the UK. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, when people are locked up in a truck, they often do not know where they are heading. They pay their money and are merely dumped somewhere, which creates a lot of problems when we have to decide where to return them. For example, there is a big trade based in the former Yugoslavia, where people pay vast amounts to cross to Italy in a rickety boat and are then taken on in trucks.
	That must be considered in the context of the debate, but we must bear in mind that although only a small number of people get through to the UK, there are 12 million or 13 million refugees in the world, most of whom are in countries neighbouring their home country. We must look for solutions to those problems, and I have some sympathy with the idea that we should have proper accommodation centres in the European Union. That is not up to the British Government to decide, but we could facilitate the idea through the various European institutions, and encourage other European countries to adopt a policy similar to that announced on 29 October in the House—a system of induction, accommodation and removal centres. I understand that there are such centres in the Netherlands, and that although there have been some problems, they are now dying down.
	A site in my constituency is being considered as an accommodation centre. My Cleethorpes constituency, and north-east Lincolnshire itself, has few ethnic people and is a very white community. That is not to say that there has been no immigration, but because the region is to the east of the country, and because of the presence of the former fishing industry, such immigration has consisted of white—for want of a better word—people from Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Denmark.
	I appreciate that such proposals will always cause people concern, but some of their fears are based on myth rather than fact. As I have tried to stress, in discussing what we can do about asylum we must maintain a balance. Stark headlines about floods of immigrants and images of people storming the channel tunnel can often give rise to fears that should not exist. Many people have expressed concern to me about the pressure that dispersal placed on services in north-east Lincolnshire, which was part of the dispersal system. If the new system of accommodation centres takes the pressure off local authorities, it should be explored.
	We must demonstrate compassion and humanity in this debate, because there are real-life stories behind the headlines. As elected representatives, we have probably heard about the horrors that some families have been through; indeed, it is impossible to imagine how they have survived those experiences. As the hon. Member for West Dorset said in the debate on 29 October, it is one of the British state's highest duties to offer a safe haven to those fleeing persecution, and we have a long and honourable tradition of doing so. I hope that we maintain that tradition—but without resorting to pejorative language and screaming headlines.
	I am gratified that today's debate has been constructive and I hope that it will continue to be so, but blaming France is not the answer. This is an international problem that requires international solutions through working with European countries and other countries around the world. 5.3 pm

David Lidington: Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the United Nations convention on refugees—the international law that has underpinned the policies of successive Governments of both major British political parties, and which has commanded the almost universal support of all democratic politicians in that time. Indeed, one striking feature of several debates on asylum in the past few years is that although there have been occasional heated disagreements between Members on both sides of the House about asylum policy, there has been a common wish to uphold and defend the convention and its underlying principles.
	As the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) said in her concluding remarks, it is the duty of a country that claims to be civilised to offer a safe haven to people who are genuinely fleeing persecution. However, if that convention and those principles are to be successfully defended and upheld, it is of the utmost importance that we are seen to have a fair and efficient system for handling asylum claims, at both the European and national level. Our normal requirements of immigration control must not be evaded—all too often they are—by people claiming asylum in order to extend their stay or establish themselves for a considerable number of years, if not permanently.
	If I had a disagreement with the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, it was that at times I felt that in her understandable wish to express reassurance, she underestimated the scale of the problem in this country and the genuine nature of public concern about it. Each year, about 90,000 people come quite lawfully as immigrants to settle permanently in the United Kingdom. In 2000, there were about 80,000 applications for asylum. Those applications were made by the head of the household, and if we include dependants we realise that the figure was somewhat larger. The number of applications for asylum roughly equates to the yearly number of lawful applications to settle in this country, which poses a significant challenge to the integrity of our immigration controls and to our ability fairly and honestly to implement the 1951 United Nations convention, as we would wish it to be implemented.
	The greatest danger from an organisation such as the British National party—and the history of Europe in the 20th century bears out my contention—arises when democratic politicians of the left, right or centre appear indifferent to or ignore the genuine concerns of the electorate whom they represent. We must be careful about the language that we use and the policies that we advocate, but we must clearly show that we recognise that public concern springs from much more than racist caricatures; it springs from deep-seated worries about the scale of the applications for asylum.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has had much experience of Home Office matters. Does he agree that it would be reasonable for those who seek asylum here or anywhere else in the EU to put their case outside the country to which they were seeking to travel? People would not then have to break into countries before being able to put their case. Instead, they could apply from somewhere that was safe, without being required to make it to the country where they wanted to end up.

David Lidington: It is perfectly sensible for us to explore how such an idea would work in practice. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will look at such matters over the next couple of years.
	A number of difficult practical issues would have to be addressed if we were to adopt the approach advocated by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes).
	As the hon. Gentleman has often and rightly said, the number of refugees and asylum seekers throughout the world is large by historical standards. Sadly, it continues to grow. It is difficult to see how any quota system could match the number of people who might wish to migrate to a western or northern country in which they and their families would be safer and might legitimately hope to have a better chance of material prosperity. We should have to engage with some awkward practical questions if we followed through on the hon. Gentleman's idea.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset for bringing this matter before the House. I have no doubt that a new bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and France would be a useful tool that would help us to deal effectively with the problem of handling asylum applications, but I do not think that it would be a panacea. I agreed with the point made by the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) that as soon as an asylum law loophole is closed, people—particularly among the organised gangs that are well supplied with lawyers—find a new loophole to exploit.
	In a world of mass migration, in which international communications mean that millions of people in poor countries know about the greater opportunities for prosperity and security in western Europe and north America, and in a world of great disorder, there is unlikely to be a permanent solution to this problem in the foreseeable future. It will remain an issue that successive Governments will have to seek to manage as best they can in this and other countries.
	None the less, the measure advocated by my hon. Friend would help. The Library note on asylum shopping tells us that between January and August 2001, just under 7,300 applications for asylum were made by people arriving from France at Dover or Waterloo. That figure is clearly at the bottom end of the true figure: it cannot, by definition, include those who came from France and claimed asylum after having arrived, either because they went to the authorities or because they were detected and then made a claim. Nor does that figure include those who may have come from France, by whatever means, and vanished without trace.
	We have heard about the enormous pressure on rail operators. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I welcome the Home Secretary's common-sense decision to lift the civil penalty from Eurotunnel and EWS. However, even if the figures for those who apply at port of entry from France have fallen in recent months, and even if the majority of would-be applicants are stopped in France before they ever reach the UK, we cannot believe that everything in the garden is fine. There is huge financial pressure on those rail operators: Eurotunnel estimated that the cost of disruption last year was £20 million.

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who, in this debate, has suggested that everything in the garden is fine? Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that there are problems that need to be addressed.

David Lidington: I take the hon. Lady's point. Everybody has admitted that there are problems that need to be addressed. However, it is not enough to argue—as has been argued during the debate—that, because the majority of people who want to seek asylum in this country are, it is claimed, being stopped on the French side of the channel, that should cause us to relax our attention to the issues. We need to ask why large numbers of young men go to Sangatte to live in the dreadful conditions described by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. An advantage of the bilateral agreement is not only that it would provide a means for the swifter and more effective return to France of applicants whose claim was unfounded, but that its existence—and its effectiveness, once it was established—would act as a deterrent to others who were tempted to follow that course of action.
	There appears to be no legal or treaty barrier to the British Government taking such an initiative. Reference has already been made to the bilateral agreement between Germany and Denmark, which operates in tandem with the Dublin convention. The Government are certainly right to say—as the Under-Secretary did in the debate in Westminster Hall on 29 January—that the politics of that agreement are different. That agreement boils down to the fact that Germany recognises that the problem is primarily hers and accepts the responsibility for preventing its export in large measure to Denmark. That gives rise to the question of how seriously the French Government take their responsibility not to export their problem to the United Kingdom.
	Let us look elsewhere in Europe—not at a full member but at an applicant member of the European Union. According to a report published by the Select Committee on Home Affairs about a year ago, people crossing from the Czech Republic to Germany are returned, without the question of asylum being raised or given substantial consideration, because under German law the Czech Republic is deemed a safe country. Although I stand to be corrected if the Minister has more up-to-date information, I am not aware of any proposal that that arrangement should be rescinded if the Czech Republic in due course becomes a full member of the EU.

Bob Russell: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Czech Republic as a "safe" country, but is he not aware that the Czech Roma are being driven out of the democratic Czech Republic, having survived under communism and under the Nazis?

Peter Lilley: They are being driven out by the Slovaks.

David Lidington: I am aware of the allegations that have been made although, as my right hon. Friend reminds us, those allegations are more usually made about the Slovak than the Czech authorities. However, if the Czech Republic cannot be trusted as a guardian of civil liberty and human rights, what on earth are we doing saying that the Czech Republic should be—as it is—a full member of the Council of Europe, or that it should be admitted to the European Union? If it were a member of the EU it would, presumably, participate in the pan-European arrangements that the Government are proposing. There is a broader question as to how we treat European countries whose respect for human rights we nominally acknowledge through our participation with them in the Council of Europe and the EU.

Ann Cryer: The Czech Republic is already a member of the Council of Europe and has been for some time. However, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is right: the country has a terrible track record on its treatment of the Roma. The Roma leave the country because of that and many of them come to the UK as refugees. I imagine that that will continue, whether or not the Czech Republic joins the EU.

David Lidington: I do not want to have a long discussion about the Czech Republic, but the point is that a country has to sign the European convention on human rights to become a member of the Council of Europe. If a remedy has to be sought against the Czech Republic, or any other member of the Council of Europe, that should be done by applying the ECHR, to which that country has subscribed.

Andrew Lansley: I want to return my hon. Friend to the point that he was making previously—the comparison between ourselves and France, as opposed to Denmark and Germany. The German understanding is that, overwhelmingly, Germany is the first safe country entered by those who travel to Denmark. The French contention is that that is not necessarily the case. However, given the absence of border controls in the Schengen group of countries, should not those countries collectively realise that such refugees will have entered one of them as the first safe country? Should not those countries begin to negotiate with us on that basis to share burdens?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes an important contribution, and it certainly would fit logically with the Schengen members' conception of their own political arrangements, with a common area for immigration, asylum and, increasingly, criminal justice arrangements.
	I said earlier that I felt at times there had been a lack of urgency in tackling the issue on both sides of the channel. The Home Secretary referred in his speech to recent French legislation to make it easier to carry out immigration checks on certain cross-channel routes. I have obviously not been able to leave the Chamber to check the facts since hearing his speech, but if my memory is correct, we in this country made good our side of that agreement about 12 months ago, under a statutory instrument that was briefly debated in Committee. If almost a further year has elapsed before such legislation has been implemented on the French side of the channel, some questions remain. I am happy to give way to the Minister if she wishes to correct me.

Angela Eagle: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be confused. The Home Secretary referred in his speech to a change in French domestic legislation, which comes into effect today and ensures that United Kingdom immigration officers can control all passengers who board UK-bound train services that travel through France. That change in law will close the Paris-Calais loophole. It is entirely beneficial, and we are very grateful to the French for changing their domestic law to allow that to happen.

David Lidington: I do not deny that that change is beneficial, but I wonder whether such a change could not have been introduced more speedily.
	Let us consider the position this side of the channel. In July 1998, the Government published a White Paper on asylum and immigration, entitled "Fairer, Faster and Firmer", which stated:
	"There is a common appreciation among most Member States that the Convention"—
	the Dublin convention—
	"is not working as it should."
	The White Paper continued:
	"The Government—
	the present Administration—
	"made the operation of the Convention a key priority for the United Kingdom's Presidency of the EU, which ended in June 1998. The Government secured agreement to a comprehensive programme of action designed to improve the operation of the Convention, and is committed to work with our European partners in that task."
	It is now three and a half years since the publication of that White Paper, which would have been drafted and framed shortly before July 1998, but the Government do not yet show the degree of urgency that is justified by the circumstances that we now face.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that seven years elapsed not just between the negotiation but the signing of the Dublin convention and its coming into force? By that standard, we are operating really fast.

David Lidington: If the hon. Lady looks back at what is becoming rather ancient history, she will see that there were problems with the ratification of the Dublin convention because one or two other signatories had fairly profound objections that needed to be sorted out before the convention could proceed to ratification. My point is that there was an acceptance by the Government, very early in their term of office, that the Dublin convention was proving ineffective, and a declaration that their concerns about the convention in practice were shared by the majority of their EU partners. Against that background, the progress to date has been tardy.
	Last September, the Home Secretary met his counterpart, Mr. Vaillant, the French Interior Minister. The package of measures that were agreed seemed, to my eyes, somewhat ambitious. It was agreed that British officials should go to Sangatte and, with French support, try to deter would-be migrants. It was agreed that both countries would take action to persuade would-be refugees to seek asylum in the first country of arrival. I do not know whether the video to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred was the fruit of that summit meeting—

Simon Hughes: It was.

David Lidington: If that video was the outcome of that meeting, I hope that, when the Minister replies to the debate, she will tell us a little about what those initiatives, about which the Government made much at the time of the summit, have meant in practice over the last few months. I also hope that she will be able to flesh out the comments that she made at the conclusion of the debate in Westminster Hall on 29 January about a successor to the Dublin convention now existing in draft. Will she give some indication of the content of the draft convention, and of the time scale for its introduction and implementation?
	Both the motion and the Government amendment recognise that the issue of migrants coming to the United Kingdom from France is intimately bound up with the overall effectiveness of our asylum system. Why are many thousands of young men going to Sangatte with the sole objective—which they declare themselves—of using it as a base to reach the United Kingdom? As other hon. Members have said, it is partly due to the attraction of the English language, and partly due to the existence of communities in this country who are willing to provide support to compatriots who come to Britain. However, it is also due to the fact that many of those young men know that, once they reach here, effective action to remove them if their claim is unfounded is unlikely or, if it happens, is likely to be delayed for a long time.
	Last year, after visiting Sangatte and exploring the question in considerable detail, the Select Committee on Home Affairs concluded that administrative and legal measures in the United Kingdom made an appreciable difference to the readiness of applicants and people smugglers to try their luck in the United Kingdom rather than elsewhere. If we look back at the history—the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the introduction of the bilateral agreement in 1995, the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and the court ruling in 1996 that significantly weakened the effectiveness of the arrangements introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)—we see that the number of people applying for asylum in the United Kingdom has altered over the years as a consequence of different Acts of Parliament, administrative actions and judicial rulings. In that context, I have three questions for the Minister on the operation of the system and whether she believes it adequately deters people such as those who live in Sangatte.
	My first question is on initial asylum decisions. I welcome the fact that the backlog is down to about 43,000, but it is still far too high. What concerns me is that a large proportion of decisions are refusals on non-compliance grounds, perhaps because not all sections of the form have been filled in or it has been returned to the Home Office late. In 2001, 17 to 20 per cent. of all Home Office decisions were refusals on those grounds alone. Although that is down on the high 25 to 30 per cent. total of 2000, it represents a massive increase on the 3 per cent. of such decisions in 1999.
	Can the Minister explain what is going on? Is it the case that people who are not genuinely fleeing persecution and who vanish into the community are not bothering to return their forms properly completed, because that would be cause for concern; or is it that people who have an arguable case for asylum are struggling to fill in unfamiliar forms in a strange language, because that would mean that the improvement in initial decisions as reflected in Home Office statistics conceals the fact that the substantive determination of such cases is being shunted down the line to the appeals system and not being dealt with by the Department in the first instance?
	My second question relates to appeals. Home Office figures for the third quarter of last year show that it received more than 16,500 appeals, but, as only 10,950 were determined, about 5,500 were added to the backlog. There was also a big increase over the 2000 figures in the proportion of appeals that were allowed by the adjudicators. What does that mean? Either the adjudicators are taking a softer line, which I find difficult to credit, or there are serious doubts about the quality of decisions taken by the Home Office at initial determination and the adjudicators are feeling obliged to reverse them in a greater number of cases.
	My third question is on removals. A bilateral agreement with France will work only if we have an effective system for removing people when we decide that they are not entitled to remain here. The number of removals of failed asylum seekers was lower in each quarter of 2001 than in the corresponding quarter of 2000. Although more than 75,000 people were refused asylum in 2000, only 8,900 were removed from this country. There are still questions to be answered about the state of our domestic asylum system. Getting that right is an essential counterpart to the sort of international agreement that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset advocates.
	Looking back to the preface to the 1998 White Paper, written in the name of the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), I find it ironic that it says:
	"Despite the dedication and professionalism of immigration staff at all levels, the system has become too complex and too slow and huge backlogs have developed. Perversely, it is often the genuine applicants who have suffered, whilst abusive claimants and racketeers have profited. The cost to the taxpayer has been substantial and is increasing."
	I am sorry to have to say that little seems to have changed in the four years since the former Home Secretary wrote those remarks.
	My right hon. and hon. Friends' motion represents a constructive start to building a fairer, faster, firmer and more effective and trustworthy system of asylum, which will enable us to discharge our responsibilities under the United Nations convention.

Neil Gerrard: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but I have been tempted to do so by the fact that, in the main, it has been constructive. That makes a pleasant change from some of the asylum and immigration debates that I have sat through here over the past few years.
	The debate has not been 100 per cent. constructive. I know that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) did not say that everything that had gone wrong had been since 1997, but he got close at times. I think that I am the only Member who served on each of the Committees that considered what became the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. On every one, the Minister concerned told us how the legislation would provide all the solutions to the asylum system. I treated the Bills in the same even- handed, objective way: I voted against all three of them. It looks as though I might have the opportunity in a few weeks to consider my attitude to the 2002 legislation.
	It has sometimes been implied in the debate— to some extent, the motion implies it—that the United Kingdom shoulders an unfair burden in comparison with other European Union countries. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out, that is not so. Between 1997 and 1999—the last complete set of figures across the EU that I have seen—there were twice as many asylum seekers in Germany as there were in the UK. Certainly when measured against population, we come nowhere near the top of the league. Figures obviously vary from year to year, but in most years we are probably eighth or ninth in the number of asylum seekers per head of population.
	To suggest, as has been frequently suggested in the debate, that a bilateral approach with France would go a significant way towards making big changes is to take a very narrow view. I understand the arguments about closing Sangatte, but let us look back at why it opened in the first place. It was because there were large numbers of people on the streets of Calais and neighbouring towns who, exactly like those now in Sangatte, had every intention of trying to make their way to the UK.
	We perhaps ought to have learned some of the lessons of the past 10 or 20 years, in that policies that are simply based on putting up barriers will not work. Each change that has done that has not worked. I know that numbers fell between 2000 and 2001, but it has been claimed today that since 1997, there has been an increase in the number of people coming to the UK from France who could otherwise have claimed asylum in France. However, that change is just one that has occurred since 1997. At the same time, we have changed carriers' liability and put airline liaison officers in many overseas countries whose specific job is to stop people getting on to planes to come directly to the UK. As I said, when one route is closed, people try to find another. We should not assume that putting up ever higher barriers will solve the problems.
	In the past couple of years, significant changes have taken place within the EU, involving not only Britain and France, but other EU countries. Moves have been made toward a common asylum policy across Europe. The 1999 Amsterdam treaty made immigration and asylum policy an EU competence for the first time. There is provision enabling the UK to opt out, but I think that we should be closely involved in those discussions, because it is foolish to think that if common asylum or immigration policies were achieved across other EU countries, the UK could stand outside with different procedures and standards.
	I appreciate that the hon. Member for West Dorset would encounter problems with some of his Back-Bench colleagues if he tried to suggest that EU-wide agreements were desirable. He therefore tries to limit the debate to France.

Oliver Letwin: I hesitate to strip away an illusion, but the Conservatives would be delighted with a more EU-wide agreement. We welcome Dublin II and the prospect of the shared burden being distributed more evenly. The problem is that it might take years. The question is not whether multilateral agreement is a good idea, but whether it might be worth trying in the meantime to reinstate a bilateral agreement as one helpful approach.

Neil Gerrard: I am not sure that all the measures would take as long as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I am glad that he agrees that we should seek wider agreement—most people welcome in principle moves towards harmonisation of asylum policies across the EU.
	There is danger in the fact that the debate so far has focused on harmonisation rather than on the more important issue of standards. We have focused far too much on how to get policies to converge, rather than on what the policies should be and what the aims of EU-wide policies should be.
	Despite the fact that the tone of today's debate has been mainly constructive, I am worried. If the attitude of every EU country is to say, "We want common standards, agreement and harmonisation, but we also want fewer people coming to our country to claim asylum," we will never reach agreement, and no progress will be made. The debate is couched in terms of wanting harmonisation and agreements—bilaterally with France, and perhaps multilaterally involving other countries—but at its root is the desire for fewer people to come to the UK to apply for asylum. If every EU country adopts a similar attitude, we will either get nowhere or end up with a policy that does not work.
	I was interested in some of the suggestions of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about how we might examine the issue of applications made from another country. I strongly agree with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), although it was greeted with scepticism by some hon. Members. Factors such as knowledge of a particular language, or family connections, or friends who are already asylum seekers or recognised refugees, have a great influence on an asylum seeker who is deciding the appropriate point at which to make an application.
	There are so many complex factors of that nature involved in the process that I find it difficult to envisage the "first safe country" concept ever really working, whatever arrangements along the lines of the Dublin agreement are reached. There are those who flee wars and end up in a neighbouring first safe country but when people travel halfway round the world to come to the European Union, I seriously doubt whether a policy based purely on first safe country will achieve the results that some people wish.

Andrew Lansley: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's great experience in these matters but is he not falling into the trap of confusing asylum policy and immigration policy, as if they were not separate matters? At the heart of asylum policy must be the concept that those who seek asylum are genuine refugees. Therefore, the first safe country principle must have a role to play in that when someone has left a place where he is in fear of persecution or risks losing his life, the first safe place that he comes to is a valid country in which to claim asylum, even if it is not his final place of residence.

Neil Gerrard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's last couple of words are an acknowledgement that there may be family connections and family ties, which presently are not recognised. I recently met an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka who had been given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. He has family members who have been given refugee status in Switzerland. However, it is impossible in the EU for that family to come together. That strikes me as ludicrous. Different countries have recognised different members of the same family, but there is no mechanism to bring them together within the EU. We need to go beyond saying that the first safe country is the only thing that matters.
	It is highly unlikely that any of us in this place will have to seek asylum. However, if I were in that position, I am not sure that France would be the first country to which I would want to go to live. That is not because I have anything against the French. I would think about language and where I might have a friend or relative whom I might want to reach.
	We shall have to consider gateways from other countries. During the Kosovo crisis, the humanitarian evacuation programme brought people who had gone from Kosovo to Macedonia to the UK and other EU countries. But only in major crises have we tried to operate mechanisms to allow approaches through an organisation such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in another country. We must think about such situations if we want seriously to deal with traffickers and cut their routes.
	As long as we erect barrier after barrier, someone will always be trying to find their way round them. He or she will try to make money by doing so and bringing in people illegally. I hope that we shall start to think about mechanisms that will allow people from other countries to make applications rather than causing them to try to smuggle themselves through the channel tunnel, for example.
	We must remember that the UN convention on refugees does not let us say that we must regard someone as a bogus asylum seeker or failed asylum seeker because he has come to this country illegally. The present position is that it is virtually impossible to come to the UK legally to make an application.
	When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes his White Paper, I hope that that will allow us to have a sensible debate on some of the wider issues. The debate must not focus on a narrow bilateral question but consider what happens throughout the EU. We must consider the links between asylum and immigration policy and economic migration. We have started to have that debate today. I hope that we can develop it when the White Paper is published in the same constructive tone that has characterised much of this afternoon's debate.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for rescuing this subject from the comparative obscurity of Westminster Hall, where I raised it early last week, and introducing it in the Chamber, where it is assured of a blaze of publicity and packed Benches—at least for his speech. I am glad that my hon. Friend has done so, and that he adopted a positive and constructive tone which has infected most of the subsequent speeches. There was however a degree of complacency in the Government's response, which is reflected in their amendment.
	It is generally accepted that the flow of asylum seekers to this country represents a significant part of a major problem. I do not want to repeat in the Chamber what I said in Westminster Hall, but we must reaffirm what we mean by the problem, which is not about individual asylum seekers. In so far as they are genuine asylum seekers genuinely seeking refuge from persecution elsewhere, Members on both sides of the House endorse and accept our responsibility to take them into this country and give them the security that they need. Even in so far as they are economic migrants who constitute a great proportion of those who come here allegedly seeking asylum, we should respect the fact that they are trying to do their best for their families. They often come from impoverished and troubled countries and, by definition, they have shown themselves to be entrepreneurial and ambitious even to have got here in the first place. As individuals, they could no doubt make a sizeable contribution to this country.
	The problem is one of numbers. We cannot be a country of unlimited immigration, and must therefore limit the number of those who come here; we must try simply to meet our obligation to those who are genuine refugees and perhaps, beyond that, those who are given exceptional leave to remain. We must restrict and prohibit entry for those who are not true asylum seekers.
	There is plenty of evidence available to all of us that the flow from France is a major part of the problem. There are continual newspaper stories of people being discovered in the back of lorries; people waiting in the Sangatte camp and repeatedly trying to get in; large numbers of people trying to break into the tunnel at Christmas; and gangs trying to rig the signals so that people can get on the trains before they reach the tunnel. All those stories provide qualitative evidence of a sizeable problem. The quantitative evidence, however, is less clear. The Government amendment cites the figures for 2000 and 2001, when 13,500 and 11,000 would-be asylum seekers, respectively, came here illegally from France.
	Those figures are puzzling. First, why did the Government just give us figures comparing 2001 with 2000? Our debate is about the situation between 1995 and 1997, and whether we could replicate and reproduce it if we restored the bilateral agreement that obtained then. Will the Minister give us the figures, comparable to those that the Government gave for 2000 and 2001, that applied during 1995, 1996 and 1997? The Government amendment says that there was a 20 per cent. reduction between 2000 and 2001, which is obviously welcome. It then says that
	"the number of clandestine entrants was reduced by 27 per cent. in 2001".
	Can the Minister tell us the distinction between the number of people crossing illegally into the United Kingdom, which showed a drop of almost 20 per cent., and the number of clandestine entrants, which showed a drop of almost 27 per cent. in 2001? Is there a distinction that we need to know about? We also need to be told whether either category—illegal entrants or clandestine entrants—is the whole story? Do not a number come here legally, then claim asylum? In addition, are there not people who come illegally, but about whom we subsequently know nothing? And are there not people who claim asylum, but we do not know which route they took?
	Are there not also dependants of claimants, since the practice is simply to give the number of claims, not the number of people covered by those claims? In addition, are there not people who will subsequently be brought here as dependants of claimants? Once people are given the right to stay here they ask, not surprisingly, whether their dependants can join them. We need to know those figures in more detail if we are to understand the size of the problem constituted by the flow of people from France to this country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset rightly pointed to the fact that we had a bilateral agreement between 1995 and 1997. So far as I know, no one denies that it was pretty effective. It may not have been 100 per cent. effective; it did not seal this country hermetically and stop the flow of immigration from France. However, it was effective and gave us the capability to return people either within 24 hours or, if we lodged a statement that we might have difficulty doing so within that period, within seven days. In certain circumstances there was a month's further grace, if I understand the agreement correctly.
	If the agreement was effective then, why cannot it be renewed now? A number of reasons have been given by the Minister and the Home Secretary. The first is that France will not agree. But France agreed in 1995 or, to be precise, the agreement was drafted in 1994 and came into force in 1995. France continued to agree, even though it had the right to resile from the agreement with a month's notice. Indeed, it continued to agree with terms that did not lapse when the Dublin convention came into force. Are the Government saying that our influence over our French friends and partners is less now than it was then? Are they saying so despite the fact that, in the interim, they have made many unilateral concessions to our partners in the European Union, including signing up to the Amsterdam treaty, unilaterally agreeing the social chapter, and agreeing with the French to co-sponsor a European rapid reaction force? All those unilateral changes, we were told, would increase our influence and take it to previously unknown heights. If that is the case, why cannot that influence now bring about something that we could achieve in 1994 and 1995?
	The Government argue that everything was stopped by the Dublin convention; the agreement was superseded by the convention, so we cannot rely on bilateral agreements any longer. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that is not the case. Germany and Denmark have, subsequent to the Dublin convention, entered into a bilateral arrangement. We are told that Germany is different from France; it is in a different geographical location, which means that, more frequently than France, it is the first place of entry into the community; and more people have made a claim there before making a claim in Denmark. All those things were true in 1995; the relative geography of France and Germany has not changed since 1995, and the arrangements have remained rigidly in place. What was possible in 1995 must surely be possible now.
	The Minister has also said that the agreement was not much use because action had to be taken within 24 hours, which has become more difficult. I am glad that some of the difficulties created by the courts have subsequently been overridden by legislation introduced by the Government, which specifies that the courts cannot treat France or Germany as unsafe countries, in the sense given in the Geneva convention. That would make it easier for us automatically to return people within 24 hours if we restored the agreement and renegotiated bilaterally.
	I repeat to the Under-Secretary, who has the misfortune of facing me once again, the questions that I put to her in the previous debate and which she did not answer. Have the Government tried to renegotiate the bilateral agreement? If so, when, where, with whom and on what terms? Why was it refused? As all of us are more interested in the future than in the past, an even more important question is whether the Government will try in future.
	The Home Secretary made the legitimate point that the French are facing elections and that, in the immediate run-up to an election, it is more difficult to get an agreement with them. That may or may not be true, but may we at least have an assurance that once those elections are out of the way, the Government will not rule out trying once again to resume the bilateral arrangement with the French, or something like it?
	A characteristically thoughtful and even more characteristically lengthy and unfocused speech from the Liberal Democrat Benches failed to address the question whether there should be a bilateral agreement. When pressed on the point by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the view of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was that there was no point. If we sent people back, they would keep trying to enter the country, so we might as well let them in in the first place. That was the logic of the hon. Gentleman's position.
	That highlights an important point. We must ask why the United Kingdom is so attractive to so many people who, having got to France—a country which I love and in which I would willingly spend more time, if the House would allow me—do not want to stay there, but want to come to this country. Theoretically, under the terms of the Geneva convention and the obligation of those seeking asylum to seek it in the first safe country to which they come, the United Kingdom should, for that reason and because it is an island, probably have the smallest flow of asylum seekers of any major country in Europe. Instead, it has the highest proportion of asylum seekers per head of any major country, though not as high as some smaller countries, such as Ireland—that is even more strange, as reaching it requires crossing two stretches of water—and Denmark.
	Why, then, is the UK so attractive? It is not just language; it is not just the generosity of our benefits. I have made it clear in the past that our benefit levels are not supremely generous, compared with those often available on the continent. It is not just because jobs are relatively available in the UK, although that obviously is a factor. When one asks asylum seekers, they say, and all the surveys show, that it is because they know that when they get to this country, they face the least likelihood of being returned to their country of origin.
	That is demonstrated by figures quoted in one of the court cases, which was held to prove that France was not a safe country and the UK was. Five per cent. of claimants who come to the UK seeking asylum from Algeria are returned to Algeria, and 80 per cent. of those from Algeria seeking asylum in France are returned to Algeria. There is a great disparity between the likelihood of their being returned once they get to the UK, and the likelihood of their being returned from other countries.
	That has not come about intentionally or wilfully. The House did not decide to make this the most attractive country in Europe for economic migrants. It has come about by accident, because we moved from a system that was essentially administrative to one which was put in the hands of the courts. In so doing, we have effectively extended to every inhabitant of the globe who can find his way to these shores the right, once he has done so, not just to seek asylum, but during the period of seeking asylum, to obtain benefits; after six months, to obtain a job; after refusal, to appeal; after the appeal being turned down, to seek a judicial review; and after the judicial review failing, to seek remedy under the Human Rights Act. By that time the person will have been here so long that he will have put down roots in this country, become part of the community, perhaps have married and probably have had children.
	The people who come to my surgery expressing generally racist views about asylum seekers one day will come the next day about Mohammed who lives next door, whom they want to stay because he has been here five years already, he is part of the community and a member of the parent-teacher association, his children go to the same school as their own, they like him, he is a good chap, and they worship in the same church, or whatever. They are right, of course. It would be inhumane to send such people back, and it becomes increasingly inhumane the longer they have stayed in this country and the deeper their roots are.
	Effectively, we have created a system for ourselves under which we cannot send people back because the whole process takes too long. They know it, so they come here and will go to great lengths to come here, including running great risks and facing great dangers to do so, because once here, they are pretty confident that they will not have to return.
	We know, although no one expresses it with as much bluntness as I perhaps can, now that I am on the Back Benches, that there are only two ways to solve the problem. One is to make the UK a less attractive place for economic migrants and asylum seekers to stay. The other is to make it a more difficult place for people to stay.
	The options for making the UK less attractive include those which apply in the period during which people may not take a job—the experiment tried by the previous Home Secretary and scrapped by the present Home Secretary to introduce voucher payments instead of benefits, and the changes that I introduced to the benefits system, which meant that if people had entered the country with a visa, to get which they had had to convince the visa authorities that they had the means to support themselves, they would not be entitled to benefits.
	All those measures were designed to make the UK a less pleasant place for asylum seekers to be. On the whole, I would prefer not to rely on such methods, even though I was responsible for one of those that I mentioned. I would prefer to make it legally more difficult for people to exploit all the loopholes in our legal system to stay in the UK when they are essentially economic migrants, not asylum seekers.

Bob Russell: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the Home Office figures which show that people born outside the UK, including asylum seekers, contribute 10 per cent. more to the economy in taxes and national insurance than they consume in benefits, which is worth about £2.5 billion a year to the British economy?

Peter Lilley: I will not comment on the figures, most of which are pretty dubious, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's general point, which I made earlier. As individuals, not just genuine asylum seekers but economic migrants can make a positive contribution to this country. However, I do not believe, and I should be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman and his party believe, that we can open up the country to unlimited immigration. We cannot—there must be some restriction.
	The number of asylum seekers coming to the UK last year approached 100,000, taking into account their dependants. The vast majority will stay, under our present arrangements. That equates to the population of my constituency. It means that every year we will have to house the equivalent of the population of my constituency. One of the great issues in my constituency is the constraint on housing and building in the green belt. I would be hypocritical in the extreme if I said that all those people should be allowed to come into the country as they would make a wonderful contribution to the economy, but that we would not provide extra houses for them, or extra towns or settlements.
	We cannot have it both ways. Not being a Liberal Democrat, I will not even try to have it both ways. We must accept that we have to make this country less pleasant in terms of the magnets of attraction, or less easy for people to stay in by exploiting legal loopholes. We need to review the way in which the Geneva convention has been enshrined in law, rather than the process of dealing with asylum seekers being essentially an administrative one, relying on a judgment of officials which will inevitably prove fallible and difficult.
	The reason is that, ultimately, the courts cannot, while meeting the usual standards that we require of them, assess what happened in a distant country on the basis of evidence supplied by the people who are coming here. It is nonsense to suggest that we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that such people have no case or that they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have a strong case. An assessment must be made as to whether they are genuine asylum seekers, but ultimately it cannot be made to the normal, rigorous standards that would apply in the court in relation to events that happened in this country.
	We must also realise that the process of dealing with asylum seekers has specific problems. I had to look into the matter in some detail when I was Secretary of State for Social Security. My right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary and I conducted an analysis—it was carried out by my officials and his—of the whole process. We established that there was a series of bottlenecks, arising in respect of initial asylum applications, appeals, judicial reviews, further appeals and deportation and removal orders. All the effort of the bureaucracy tends to be spent on widening the bottlenecks that are already widest, but as anyone who has ever understood process engineering will know, that is the wrong way of going about things. One should try to widen the narrowest bottleneck first. In this case, that is the process of removal and deportation. Until we enhance and speed up that process and reduce the length of the pipeline—the period between an initial claim and liability for deportation and removal—we will not solve that problem, or at least we would be able do so only by taking the less humane approach of making this country less attractive for people to live in. I do not think anybody in the House would like to do that.
	I hope that the Government will take the small step that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset pressed upon them so eloquently and endeavour to renew the bilateral agreement. In the longer term, I hope that they will look to see whether we need more fundamental changes in the process and the legal structures through which we handle the asylum problem, if we are to gain some control of it in future.

Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome this very reasonable-sounding debate. I hope it is a sign that the approach that the Opposition adopted on asylum during the election campaign—certainly in my constituency—is now behind them. The issue was used to create fear among residents in an attempt to generate support for the Conservatives, but I am glad to say that it was unsuccessful, and I hope that such tawdry exploitation of people's genuine anxieties about the way in which asylum is administered will be a thing of the past.
	I also hope that the positive tone of the debate reflects a recognition that such discussion cannot be based on the assumption that the presence of one extra asylum seeker is inevitably a problem. Such assumptions have always damaged the debate on asylum and immigration in Britain. Let us not forget that Einstein was a refugee, or that many of the most entrepreneurial and dynamic communities in Britain started their lives here as refugee communities and have contributed hugely to Britain's success and international reputation in many different fields. We should celebrate that. The tolerant character of this country in welcoming people who flee persecution is one of our great strengths, and we should be proud of it.
	I fear that, in trying to present itself as being very reasonable, the Conservative party is portraying an issue that I think of as a matchbox lid as a vast set of gates comparable to those at St. Stephen's entrance. Although better bilateral arrangements with France could make some difference to the number of people seeking access to Britain to claim asylum, let us not pretend that it would make a huge difference. Such an assumption would once again contribute to the sort of misinformation that has dogged debates on asylum.
	What would most improve the situation in terms of the numbers of applicants and of the way in which we deal with asylum applications? The answer is pretty straightforward. More than anything else, we must improve the speed and integrity of the current system. I know that the one-stop appeal introduced under the most recent legislation was an attempt to reduce delays, but it was established on top of a failing administrative system. The current delays benefit only bogus applicants. Some people are making bogus claims, and are aware that they are doing so. It is they who benefit hugely from bad administration, lost files and delays. We must remind ourselves constantly that that is the case. I hope that in his statement later this week my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make proposals that put speed, efficiency and integrity back into the asylum system.
	I was both depressed and amused to hear the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) tell the Minister about an Afghan who had sought asylum in his constituency in 1999 but had received no decision. I felt like sending a note to my office asking for details of a bunch of cases in which people have been here for a decade without receiving a decision. I promise hon. Members that it is possible to find such cases. Before this debate, I looked at the cases of the people who have come to see me in the past week about asylum claims, as well as the letters that I have received in that time. One letter from the Minister said that I was slightly wrong in connection with a point that I had made to her about a constituent who has been served with a notice of decision. I was glad to receive the letter, but in the meantime another development had occurred. I had been trying to ensure that my constituent's case was considered with her husband's. That did not happen. Her husband was given asylum and she was again refused it in the letter with which she has now been properly served.
	Similar examples of failure in the administrative system are common. At my advice surgery on Friday, I spoke to a Sri Lankan family who appealed in May 1997, before I was elected as Member of Parliament for Slough. Their decision was received in June 1998, so it took more than a year for it to be promulgated. It gave them asylum. The husband received his status letter confirming the decision in July 2000, but his wife and children have still not had that notification, even though I have been re-elected in the meantime. Those examples are not extreme—I picked them because they were recent—but they illustrate problems that have developed over time and that are so serious that they in turn create new problems.
	A properly administered decision-making system is more important than an agreement with France. Expert decision makers should operate early in the system, thus leading to fewer stupid decisions, such as refusals because of out-of-time returns of applications, to which other hon. Members have referred. The quality of initial decisions should be good so that adjudicators do not overturn so many decisions. The system should enable us to recognise genuine refugees early and reduce delays for them.

Oliver Letwin: Does the hon. Lady share our hope that the forthcoming White Paper will propose to include in accommodation centres, or even reception centres, a full suite of the experts, ranging from doctors and lawyers to decision makers and adjudicators, who are required to make on-the-spot, effective decisions, for the sake of those who try to get into the country because of dire circumstances?

Fiona Mactaggart: If the hon. Gentleman reads the question that I asked when the Home Secretary made a statement several months ago, he will realise that I made the point that there should be proper advice in reception centres. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend make the same point in Question Time today. I am not sure whether adjudicators are needed in reception centres, but expert advice is required to enable people to present their best case. Adjudication is not necessary in the first week, but we need to ensure that people can present the best case and that the decision makers have sufficient training, autonomy and sense to make the best decisions.
	In addition, I hope that the White Paper will include proposals for good-quality documentation about countries' circumstances that is accepted by those who represent asylum seekers and Home Office decision makers. Such a provision exists in Canada, where both sides accept documentation about countries' circumstances. That means fewer arguments about whether a country from which people have fled is safe because both sides depend on internationally recognised, independent human rights monitors, which gets rid of some confusion. It is important to include the right people early.
	Let us consider the proposition that a bilateral agreement will make a substantial difference to the number of people who seek asylum in Britain after travelling from France. There is a chronic problem about knowing through which countries people have travelled, and it will not go away for two reasons. First, many people travel in sealed containers; sometimes that has tragically led to their deaths. Secondly, some people believe that admitting through which countries they have travelled is likely to lead to their being returned to a place where they have a well-founded fear of persecution. We must deal with that in the long term; I accept that it is difficult in the short term, but we must do it.
	The necessary changes involve not only a bilateral agreement between Britain and France, about which I do not feel optimistic, but a better agreement between European countries about common procedures for dealing with asylum applications. It is currently possible for France to remove those who have not applied for any status: the people at Sangatte. The French authorities choose neither to remove them nor to require them to apply for asylum, although they know that the people in Sangatte are seeking refuge.
	If the French authorities held the positive views that Conservative Members are slightly overstating, they could adopt a simple method of tackling the problem. They could require those who reside in Sangatte to make asylum applications. They do not, partly because the people there do not want to do that. However, such a requirement would have the same effect as a bilateral arrangement. I accept the Home Secretary's points, but one of the sensible requests that we could make to the French Government would be to encourage the people in Sangatte to make asylum applications.
	If the Dublin II arrangements were implemented, the people in Sangatte would have to make an application to France within two months, or, if they remained for two months, France would become responsible for them. We must acknowledge that France has not always honoured agreements to the extent that is being suggested. I was involved in immigration in the period when, according to Conservative Members, a bilateral arrangement worked perfectly. On many occasions, France did not accept people whom Britain attempted to return under it. I can also think of current examples of France unilaterally repudiating agreements. For example, it continues to refuse to recognise United Kingdom-issued stateless travel documents for people with exceptional leave to remain.
	The tenor of the debate has been of people preferring to remain in Britain rather than France, but let us be clear that France operates as I described. The French authorities refuse to allow people with refugee travel documents and refugee status here to visit France without visas. We should not become too confident that France is enthusiastic about a bilateral agreement or that it would abide by it.
	We will solve the problem not only by improving our systems and making bilateral agreements with France but by working energetically for full harmonisation throughout the European Union on the definition of a refugee and the process that people undergo to determine their status. I appreciate that we cannot do that in months, and it is not therefore the short-term solution that the Conservative party wants. However, it is necessary because the minor differences between EU countries' methods of deciding applications often determine the places to which people choose to apply. People do not apply to Britain simply because there are more jobs here; they feel fearful about some countries' treatment of them. There is no reason for not achieving an EU agreement on interpreting the convention and proper procedures for dealing with applicants.
	There are stumbling blocks, such as Germany's refusal to accept oppression by groups and forced marriages as grounds for refugee status, but working on EU agreement is important. If we put a lot of energy into that, we would be able to create a genuinely level playing field in the system to define who is a refugee within the European Union, and then we could work towards equality in procedures for granting and refusing status, reception conditions and so on. That must be the Government's priority.
	The final line of the amendment reminds us of the difficult situation that the Conservative party put many local authorities in through its chaotic arrangements. Some authorities are still suffering from that, and I urge the Minister to ensure that there is fair treatment for local authorities close to London that are still burdened with high costs because they have to provide for large numbers of asylum seekers.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to a debate in which some very important points have been made. I was surprised that, in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the Home Secretary did not tell us more about what is being done to try to achieve an effective border control between ourselves and France.
	The Home Secretary was in France on 19 September last year and spoke about the juxtaposition of different regimes and the introduction of new equipment to try to improve the detection of people attempting to enter illegally. It would have been a service to the House if he had given us some more detail on that. Perhaps the Minister will do that; otherwise, a few months on from 19 September, people will still be in the dark about the effectiveness of those new technologies.
	Some of the more aggressive attempts to get into the tunnel and on to the trains may in fact be the result of successful new measures, and people should be made aware of that. One of the things that I would like this debate to achieve is to deny the Daily Express a headline. If we can add to public information and show that there is a system in place to try to deliver effective border control, that will be all to the good.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) spoke about the Government's failure to secure bilateral agreement with France. I offer him a suggestion as to why it did not happen. Back in February 2001, the Prime Minister had a discussion with President Chirac about these issues. The principal result was that the French Government offered the Prime Minister a cross-channel commission. The French Government have noticed that a commission—rather than the delivery of substantive measures—is our Government's solution to most problems, so it is hardly a surprise that they offered him rhetoric and a procedural solution, rather than a substantive one.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) asked about juxtaposed immigration officials. That was reasonable, and not at all churlish, because back in February 2001, when the decision was being made, Downing street said, according to the BBC, that the scheme would be in place by summer 2001—so where is it?
	We should have an agreement with France. It is perfectly clear that such an agreement was relatively successful in the past but fell down under the implementation of the Dublin convention. The French Government simply cannot abandon their responsibility. People who have entered a Schengen country, which is where they should have made their asylum application, and who are illegally in France are seeking to come illegally to the UK. France has a moral, if not a legal, obligation under the Dublin convention to do something about it. It should work with the Schengen group and the British Government to deliver. Dublin II is a lengthy process, and something needs to be done in the meantime.
	The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said that the most important thing was to deliver an efficient and quick system of asylum decision making that has integrity. I entirely agree, but frankly that is not separate from the problems in France. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, the fact that our system has not been effective and we have not been able to offer asylum rapidly to genuine refugees, while those without a valid claim remain here with no realistic prospect of removal, has led to the problem of large numbers of people in France making repeated efforts to get here, because the reward is seen as worth the risk. We must reduce the reward for illegal entry into this country and ensure that only those with a well-founded fear of persecution seek asylum here.
	At the heart of that is whether the Government can deliver on their promises. I acknowledge that many more caseworkers have been taken on—finally, last year—but we need to know how quickly the Government will start reducing the backlog not only of initial decisions but of appeals. On 29 October last year, the Home Secretary promised us 6,000 appeal decisions a month. How quickly will we achieve that and the 2,500 removals a month which, as I understand it, he promised would be delivered by spring 2002? How soon will we be able to establish in our own minds and the minds of those who might wish to come to this country that we understand the difference between those who have a claim to asylum and those who want to come here on grounds of economic migration?
	We must distinguish between the two, although that does not mean that we put up a "Closed" sign and refuse to allow anyone to come here on economic grounds. I hope that the White Paper will set out a reasonable basis for offering economic migration to the UK, because that can be of considerable benefit to us. This country spent a couple of hundred years in the 18th and 19th centuries exporting people to various parts of the world, so we ought at least to understand that there might be occasions when it is reasonable for people to come here.
	We need to have a system whereby those with a reasonable claim to asylum have a confident expectation of securing a welcome here, with good accommodation, delivered through a quick system of decision making, while those who want to come here as economic migrants know that it is far better to put in a claim from their country of origin or, if they have left countries such as Afghanistan or Somaliland, that they will be part of an international system of sharing the burden of looking after such migrants, and that if they have a special reason for wanting to come to the United Kingdom, we will acknowledge it.
	Those who put themselves in the hands of the traffickers should be increasingly sure that illegal entry to the United Kingdom will be prevented or reversed, and they will be rapidly returned to their country of origin. If people knew that trying to secure illegal entry here would not pay, we would have a much more successful system. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset put to Ministers. My debate in Westminster Hall on 24 October 2000 was designed to secure answers to the same questions, and it took the Home Secretary only five days to respond in large measure to that. I hope that the Government will respond positively today.

Humfrey Malins: This has been a thoughtful and constructive debate. Measured contributions have been made in a non-party political way from all parts of the House, and we should all be grateful for that. I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who introduced this topic in what might in sporting terms be described as a warm-up match in Westminster Hall the other day.

Angela Eagle: The second XI?

Humfrey Malins: Is the hon. Lady talking about her own side? Surely not.
	Some of the players in that debate are here again today. I was grateful for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who has great experience in home affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made a thoughtful and well-argued speech, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden outlined many of the issues that we raised together in Westminster Hall last week. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—who decided that after last week, I was not to have a quiet afternoon today but would have to do the same thing again—for the constructive way in which he put our arguments to the House.
	I hope that I shall be forgiven, Madam Deputy Speaker, for reminding the House that in 1992 I was privileged to found the Immigration Advisory Service, the largest national charity that gives free legal help and advice to those with rights of appeal under immigration law. It does excellent work throughout the country, and I am proud of my association with it. As the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, expert advice for asylum seekers is important, and the IAS is one of the bodies that provides it.
	We would all agree with the proposition that any country with decent values—I am thankful to say that we remain such a country—must speedily and happily grant refugee status to those who are entitled to it. Further, we must display not just good sense but humanity, not only in what we do but in what we say—and, most important, in the way we say it. That point was reinforced by the hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).
	Twenty years ago, or even 10, asylum was not a political issue in this country. Today it is. Why? Perhaps the answer is simple. It is because of the dramatic increase in the number of applications, and the publicity, some of it rather inflammatory, given to the topic by the media and others.
	The world has changed. Today millions of people are on the move: many are displaced by conflicts and war, but many are simply seeking a better life. We are witnessing a steady march of genuine asylum seekers from war-torn areas and regimes that persecute—but there is also a steady march of the poor and desperate, who seek no more than the chance to work, to live decently and to support their families. Both those categories of people deserve our respect—and, I venture to suggest, our help.
	The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) referred in an intervention to the appalling criminal gangs that smuggle people into this country—and there is, of course, another date that should be impressed on all our minds: 19 June 2000, when 58 Chinese people were found dead, suffocated, in the back of a lorry at Dover. Yes, they were illegal immigrants, but we should never forget—I am sure that none of us, on either side of the House, will ever forget—that they were also ordinary people who sought no more than a better life, to which who would say that they were not entitled?
	A glance at the figures illustrates the changed world in which we live. In 1990 there were 26,000 asylum applications; in 2000 there were more than 97,000, including dependants. There is also the backlog. I cast no blame for this, but in August 2001 more than 43,000 applicants were awaiting an initial decision. We were—and still are—faced with the sadness that several Members have referred to when people are refused asylum and have to leave this country having been here for months, even years. Those people have put down roots, and many of us have seen in our surgeries the human tragedies that sometimes result.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset rightly drew the attention of the House to the bilateral agreement that we had with France. As he said, it worked well for two years and would work well again. The Opposition support without reservation my hon. Friend's call for the Government to do their utmost to reinstate that agreement. The hon. Member for Slough suggested that we were saying that that would be a short-term solution, but we were not. I do not think that any of us thinks of it as a solution; it is simply one step that we could and should take, for the benefit of all concerned.
	In the Westminster Hall debate last week I tried, not forcefully but in a rather laid-back way, to press the Minister to tell us what the Government had done over the past four years to try to persuade France to reinstate the agreement that had worked so well. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden would agree that the Minister could not tell us much. She spoke of the
	"considerable bilateral work with France, centring mainly on the Sangatte issue",
	and when pressed further she simply said that the two Governments
	"meet regularly to discuss immigration issues."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 29 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 19WH.]
	I hope that when she winds up the debate she will be able to tell us in more detail what the Government have done over the past four years to try to reinstate the agreement.
	France has co-operated well. I hope he will forgive me if I am wrong, but I think it was the Home Secretary who mentioned the French legislation which means that passengers using an international train service with a domestic leg—Paris to the UK via Calais, say—have to submit to UK entry controls in Paris. I congratulate the Government on the work that they have done with the French in that respect, and I believe that that law comes into force either yesterday, today or tomorrow. Such co-operation is important, and should be repeated with the bilateral agreement.
	I must say a word or two about Sangatte. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, spoke movingly and accurately about the state of affairs there. When I visited Sangatte with the Home Affairs Committee, I saw almost 1,000 people herded together in what seemed like an aircraft hangar, gathered to make their attempt to enter this country. They were in a sorry state; it was cold, nasty and damp, people were cramped together, and the lavatory conditions were awful. Nobody on that all-party Committee could have failed to be moved by what we saw.
	We saw thousands of people who had passed through a series of safe countries and arrived in France, which is itself a safe country. The obvious question to ask is, if they were asylum seekers, why did they not make their claim—indeed, why were they not obliged to make their claim—in the first safe country they reached, or in France itself? If they were not asylum seekers, what was being done to prevent their attempts to enter this country illegally?
	I ask the Government to do all that can be done to persuade the French to close Sangatte—on humanitarian grounds, if for no other reason. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, perhaps there is an argument for centres to be further away from the French coast. I was sorry to read in the papers that an attempt by Eurotunnel to have the centre closed was rejected a few days ago by a French court, for the second time in about five months.
	What advice can the Opposition offer the Government? I simply ask them, "Please do all you can to work closely with the French to reinstate the bilateral agreement that served us so well, and also work hard to ensure that Sangatte is closed." I also make the nuts-and-bolts point that they should put more detection equipment not only at Dover but at Felixstowe, and at Coquelles and Calais. There should be more equipment on the other side of the channel, where it would be so much more use.
	The Opposition believe that the House is united in the aim of reducing the inflow of asylum applicants, and is also committed to a more equal distribution. We believe that a reinstated bilateral agreement is a most useful measure. Perhaps the issue that divides us is the Government's belief that a long-term, EU-wide distributional treaty is the whole answer, but we both accept that there is merit in the other's principle. All we say to the Government is that now is the time to act. With good will, the bilateral agreement, which could—and should—bring more order to our system, could be reinstated within months. Whatever we do, sooner rather than later we must adopt a policy that ensures that the tragedy of the 58 Chinese can never be repeated.

Angela Eagle: There has been considerable agreement during the debate on what needs to be done to address the problem of those who seek asylum in particular European Union countries. There has also been a great deal of discussion of wider asylum issues, to which we will be able to respond when the White Paper is published. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned the need to consider end-to-end processes and a more holistic system, rather than relying purely on asylum. Reference has also been made to illegal working and establishing international agreements to deal with this evolving issue, and I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that the White Paper contains such analysis. I hope that its suggestions will be welcomed on publication later this week.
	I also welcome the tone of the debate, which has established at least one thing that we can all agree on—that the problem cannot be solved purely by unilateral action in the UK. This is a global issue with international and supranational aspects, and we need to co-operate internationally if we are to defeat the scourge of the people traffickers. While listening to today's debate, I was heartened to hear many hon. Members acknowledge that trade's criminal nature, its growth in recent years and its dire effects on those who fall into the clutches of the people traffickers. Again, the White Paper will have something to say about that.
	I must, however, move away slightly from the warm glow of the cross-party approach, because I do not agree with the analysis that the bilateral agreement was a sunny upland that we should look back on nostalgically and attempt to repeat. Actually, it did not work very well, and I should chide the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) slightly for his article in today's Daily Express, the tone of which does not quite match his comments in the House today. In it, he states:
	"the flow of people crossing the Channel from France reached unsustainable levels and brought our asylum system to its knees".
	That is not true. Although there have been increases, our bilateral and co-operative agreements with the French have substantially reduced the numbers getting through, which is one reason why Sangatte is holding double the amount of people that it was designed to hold.
	The hon. Gentleman's article also suggests that the bilateral agreement—it was called a gentleman's agreement, funnily enough—worked well. I can give him some figures on how well it worked. His article states that, when the Labour Government took office, the lower figure that was achieved under the bilateral agreement increased to as many as 43,000, and it implies that all of that increase was associated with France. However, in 1996, when the gentleman's agreement was in place, his Government returned numbers of people in the low teens every month. Overall, between 150 and 200 people were returned in 1996. The figures improved slightly in 1996-97, when 516 asylum seekers were returned to France under the terms of the bilateral agreement. Those figures are nowhere near being of the kind that his praise of the agreement would imply.
	The plain fact is that the agreement was weakened and rendered even less effective by judicial action and suspensive appeals as soon as it came into force. It took longer for an appeal to a judicial authority to establish that a return was sensible than the 24 hours, seven days or one month that the agreement specified. As a result, there were an increasing number of judicial review challenges. Even after the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and just before the end of the agreement, the monthly removal rate was 43 a month, but there were 127 judicial reviews. The agreement was faltering before it was superseded.

Oliver Letwin: We have acknowledged during this debate that the judicial review caused difficulties, but have not the actions of the Minister's own Government rightly limited the scope for such reviews? Surely the real measure of the bilateral agreement's effectiveness is not how many were returned, but how many were deterred from moving in that direction in the first place.

Angela Eagle: Deterrence is a major theme in the forthcoming White Paper, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome some of the things that we have to say about that issue. I am merely saying that the gentleman's agreement was probably put in place in the absence of the Dublin convention, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) rightly pointed out, was not brought into effect until seven years after it was negotiated because of difficulties arising from negotiation. To say that the gentleman's agreement would solve all our problems is therefore simplistic, to say the least. Any agreement that we reach, be it Dublin or Dublin II—which we hope will replace the first convention—will always be challenged by changes in behaviour that result from its coming into force.
	In his Daily Express article, the hon. Gentleman says that the agreement, which was negotiated by the previous Conservative Government,
	"was allowed to lapse when . . . Labour came to power".
	I shall read to him the last sentence of the first paragraph of that agreement, which states:
	"in relation to asylum seekers, it"—
	the gentleman's agreement—
	"shall be superseded by the relevant provisions of the Dublin Convention once that Convention has entered into force."
	The hon. Gentleman was good enough to point that out to the House, but that is not quite what his Daily Express article says.
	If we are to debate this issue, we need to get the facts on the table. We must not cling to the gentleman's agreement as if it will solve problems that we have spent three hours debating today, and which we all know are very difficult to solve. There are no simple and easy answers to global migration and the question of how to deal with asylum. I would be the last to say that our systems are perfect. The White Paper will be a substantial step in the right direction, but I am not going to argue that, even if the White Paper's proposals were put in place tomorrow, we would not face substantial difficulties in dealing with global migration. We have to deal with the issue at source country. We have to negotiate bilateral and multilateral agreements, where that is necessary, that we can put in place. It has to be in everyone's interests, however, so burden-sharing in the European Union is an important part of our plans.
	I am glad to have had the chance to debate this. It has been a fair and interesting debate, and I hope that it is a taster for what is to come with the publication of the White Paper later in the week.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 325.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes that co-operation with France on immigration and asylum issues is greater now than it has ever been; recognises that there has been an overall drop from 13,527 in 2000 to 10,927 in 2001, a drop of almost 20 per cent., in the number of people crossing illegally to the UK from France; further notes that bilateral co-operation continues to address the problem of asylum seekers in Northern France, that the French have made significant investment in police reinforcements in the region and judicial action has been taken against human traffickers and that, as a result of the imposition of the civil penalty, the number of clandestine entrants was reduced by 27 per cent. in 2001; and further notes that the previous Conservative Government left the asylum system in complete disarray, with local authorities left to pick up the pieces.

Pensions and Benefits

Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

David Willetts: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the Government's stated aim of increasing from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. the proportion of pensioners' incomes which comes from the private sector, but notes with concern that the trend is in the opposite direction; deplores the regulatory burdens now placed on pension providers; condemns the Government for its failure to reform annuities; regrets the low level of saving and the decline of funded pensions; recognises that this poses a significant threat to the incomes of pensioners in the future; and further regrets that the Government's response is to increase the number of pensioners dependent on means-tested benefits.
	The motion begins by endorsing an objective set by the Government. I had hoped that that would provide a starting point on which we could all agree. That point was the aim of moving from a system in which pensioners receive 40 per cent. of income from private savings and 60 per cent. from benefits to one in which the figures are the other way around. I regret that Ministers have, in the Government's slash-and-burn amendment to our motion, removed even our welcome for their stated aim. I hope that the Secretary of State can assure us that no matter what problems he may have with what we now call delivery, he remains committed to the aim of increasing from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. the proportion of pensioners' incomes that comes from the private sector. I hope that that is shared ground and a goal in which we all believe.
	The reason for the debate is our concern that we are moving in the opposite direction. We worry that the decline of funded pensions that has gathered pace is spinning out of control. The proportion of employees with an occupational personal pension is declining. We know from parliamentary answers that the number of occupational pension schemes closed to new members is rising. We know from the latest survey by the National Association of Pension Funds that the percentage of members in schemes closed to new members has risen from 8 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the past year. There has even been a slight decline in the number of pensioners receiving an income from an occupational pension scheme.
	The picture before us is one of declining funded pension savings. That is borne out vividly by the statistics for the assets of our pension funds that have been released over the past few weeks. We thought that the picture was clear. The Office for National Statistics produced statistics on insurance companies' pension funds and trust investments. I am sure that those figures were closely read by many hon. Members; certainly, they should have been read by Ministers. They showed that in 1998 the total assets of our occupational pension schemes were £706 billion. That figure had risen by 1999 to £783 billion.
	With no comment or explanation, a new set of statistics was released more recently. Those figures show a very different picture. For precisely the same period covered by the previous statistics, they show that in 1999 our pension funds contained not £783 billion but £679 billion. Call me old fashioned, but £100 billion is still quite a lot of money to lose. We are entitled to hear Ministers explain those statistics rather than smuggle them out. Why was the value of our pension schemes suddenly reduced by £104 billion?

John Butterfill: Might the answer lie, at least in part, in the fact that the Government have raided pension funds through advance corporation tax changes to the tune of £5 billion a year for the past few years?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is quite correct, but we have two problems. First, on the snapshot date in 1999, the ONS estimate of the value of our pension funds had fallen by more than £100 billion. Secondly, there are questions about the trend in the value of our pension funds, which my hon. Friend rightly raises and to which I shall turn shortly.
	The ONS produced the revised figures for the value of pension fund assets with no apology or explanation of what had happened. If we are confronting what seems to be the biggest revision of economic statistics in the history of British economic management, we are surely entitled to some explanation of why £100 billion has gone from our pension funds. In the past hour, the ONS has stated:
	"Preliminary investigations suggest there is an error in the revision to 1999 and to the figures for 2000, particularly in the estimates of holdings of quoted shares. Further investigation is needed to clarify the position. In the interim, the figures are being withdrawn."
	So just before the debate, the Government withdrew their figures for the value of the assets of the pension funds of this country. In the press release that has just been rushed out, the Government are saying that they do not have the faintest idea how much there is in our pension funds.
	I hope that, at the very least, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will give us an explanation of what has gone wrong. Perhaps someone's finger slipped on the calculator—it is easy to lose £100 billion in the roundings—but I hope that at least we shall have an explanation as to what has gone wrong and a promise that, next time £100 billion goes astray from our pension funds, the Government will offer us—on time—a proper explanation and account instead of trying to smuggle out a statement with no explanation.

Bob Spink: My hon. Friend may have noticed that some Labour Members have been laughing. Does he agree that this is no laughing matter but one about which our pensioners should be deeply concerned?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. We are talking not only about a massive statistical error—serious though that is—but about a new picture of what is happening to our pension funds. The old model, on the old statistics, was that there was £706 billion in 1998 and £783 billion in 1999, and that we would be moving onwards and upwards into the sunny uplands with more and more funded pension savings.
	I realise that nowadays there is complete uncertainty as to what is reliable, but the new statistics instead gave a figure of £706 billion in 1998, with the 1999 figure revised down to £679 billion, while the new figure for 2000 was even lower—£658 billion: a clear downward trend. If the glory days of all that money in our pension fund assets have passed, those statistics and that new trend establish for the House the scale of the problem that we face in ensuring that our pensioners enjoy prosperity when they retire.
	There are of course many reasons for that decline. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has already referred to the increase in the tax burden and the regulatory burden that has fallen on many pensioners. However, no matter which of the many explanations one offers, the picture of decline in funded pensions is difficult to gainsay.
	Ministers may try to gainsay that fact, however. Let me suggest some of the arguments that we may hear. We may be told, "Ah, but of course markets go down as well as up." There will be a Financial Services Authority health warning on shares in pension funds. That is not what the Government used to say. It is certainly not what the Prime Minister said when he was challenged on the effect of his massive tax hit on our funded pensions. Then, he said that
	"as a result of pension funds rising 70 per cent. because of rises in the stock market since the election, those sums"—
	the sums for the tax—
	"are entirely illusory."—[Official Report, 1 November 2000; Vol. 355, c. 704.]
	In fact, the Prime Minister's statistics were illusory. The reality is that people have less money in their pension funds because of the tax hit that he has imposed.
	I am sure that we shall also be told, "Don't worry, the funds are still pouring in." We have heard those statistics many times from Ministers and they are hinted at in the Government's amendment. However, I warn the Secretary of State that those figures for the flow of incomes into funded pensions come from the same source as the figures for the value of the assets in pension funds that he has withdrawn in the past hour. We shall not rely on those figures for the total income going into pension funds. If the right hon. Gentleman tries to develop that argument, I warn him that he is straying into dangerous quicksand. We know how those figures went wrong, and I shall be happy to enlighten him if he tries to deploy them.
	The Government will also argue—as the motion suggests—that there is no need to worry because they have introduced the marvellous stakeholder pensions. The Opposition want stakeholder pensions to be a success, but we know the problems that they face. I shall not go over the ground that we debated in this place just before Christmas regarding the take-up of stakeholder pensions. The Government have a target group—

Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

David Willetts: The latest figures—out today—confirm that, exactly as we warned in that debate, there are 5 million people in the target group with earnings of between £10,000 and £20,000 a year. Approximately 600,000 stakeholder pensions have been sold, and by the time one removes the people who have transferred to stakeholder pensions from other schemes, people who have been advised that their non-working wives should have a stakeholder pension, or people who have bought stakeholders for their grandchildren, the total number of people in the Government's target group will—as I suggested in that previous debate—be rather smaller than the number of life peers that the Prime Minister has created since 1997. It may do the Government an injustice, but the figure is still many millions short of their target.
	I had intended not to repeat that point but to raise another one. What we are trying to focus on in this debate is the value of the funds in our pensions. I hope that the Secretary of State will also enlighten us on what are called in the trade "empty stakeholders". Those are stakeholder pensions that are perfectly formed, legally compliant and designated, as required by the legislation passed by the Government. Employees have been informed—just as they should have been. Such pensions are included regularly in the totals issued by Ministers of the number of stakeholder pensions that have been set up—but there is one minor technical problem: there is no money in them. They have no funds whatever.
	I shall quote from an employer's account. She said that she had a group personal pension, but
	"last month my independent financial adviser kindly advised me to set up a 'dummy' stakeholder scheme in order to be certain not to risk a £50,000 fine. This was duly done and announced, to gales of ironic laughter from staff. No one will ever contribute to it, but I've got my certificate."
	That anecdote is borne out by assessments made by independent financial advisers, one of whom calculated that nearly 80 per cent. of group stakeholder schemes that have been sold are designation only. That means that currently no contributions are going into them.
	The empty stakeholder is the apotheosis of Labour's pension policy. The legislation was passed; the brand name was launched; the employers comply with the new regulation; the employees are informed. Ministers boast about the number of schemes, but there ain't no money—no money whatever. They make no contribution at all to tackling the problem of pensioner poverty. Stakeholders will not do so either.
	Ministers do have one answer to the decline in funded pensions, however. It was revealed in a document published at almost the same time as the statistics that showed the decline and was entitled "The Pension Credit: Long-term Projections". The document shows what will really happen if we all retire with a modest amount in our funded pensions—which is now a dangerous risk: we shall be dependent on means-tested benefits.
	The projections in the document show that in 2040, assuming that the cost of the pension credit grows in line with earnings and that the revised level of funded pensions saving is a real prospect—scenario one—the pension credit will cost not £2 billion, as it is supposed to do in 2004, but £20 billion. In 2050, the cost will be £26 billion. It is forecast to take more than 1 per cent. of our entire national income.
	If we put together the statistics on the decline of funded pensions and the projected cost of the pension credit, we can see that there is a strategy behind what the Government are doing. We can see exactly in which direction our country is headed: to a situation where our funded pensions shrink in value, where we retire with lower pension incomes than we had hoped and, as a result, where we are dependent on means-tested benefits. That is the direction in which the Government are taking us. We are already moving in it; the number of pensioners dependent on means-tested benefits has risen from 41 per cent. in 1997 to 57 per cent. in 2003, as the Library says in a letter to me, but that trend could go still further.
	Our vision is one of a society where people build up more funded pensions for their retirement. That involves a pensions regime that is straightforward, comprehensible and encourages people to save, so that their incomes are not dependent on means-tested benefits. We have called this debate because it is clear that the Government are taking us in exactly the opposite direction.

James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman talks about means-tested benefits and reducing the number of people who have to claim them. Obviously, one way to do that would be to cut the value of the minimum income guarantee. Can he give us a guarantee that, if he were the Secretary of State, he would continue to uprate the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings?

David Willetts: We will have that debate as we approach the next election. The Government have not promised indefinite upratings of their means-tested benefits in line with earnings, and our warning is that that is where we will end up if we carry on in the direction in which we are going; but the long-term uprating of benefits in line with earnings is not consistent with the objective in which Ministers say they believe—funded pensions providing 60 per cent. of pensioners' incomes.
	We want a society in which people have more funded-pension savings. That vision is as important as high-quality public services. When people are stuck on trolleys waiting for medical attention in hospital, they can see what is going wrong with our health service. When people are delayed by yet another rail strike, they can see that our transport system is not working. The decline in our funded pensions is much less visible, but it is more insidious and equally dangerous. The long-term consequences for our society of the decline in funded pensions could be very serious indeed. That is why we have called this debate, and it is why I ask the House to support the motion.

Alistair Darling: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the Government's framework for pensions which will reduce pensioner poverty and encourage saving; further welcomes the fact that pension savings are now at record levels and the increased choice given by stakeholder pensions; further welcomes the Government's decision to set up the Pickering review; and congratulates the Government on the extra £6 billion paid to pensioners from April and its intention to bring in the Pension Credit which will increase the incomes of around half of all pensioners."
	I commend the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) for one thing at least—he spoke for substantially less time than he did when we last debated pensions. The only thing that seems to be the same is that he said absolutely nothing then about what the Conservative party would do to increase people's pensions savings, and tonight he did exactly the same—he said exactly nothing about what the Conservative party would do.
	I will deal with all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised during his short speech, but I am surprised that almost a year into this Parliament there is still no Tory policy. I am surprised because in the previous Parliament policies flowed from him like water. He told us that the winter fuel payments were gimmicks, as were free television licences. A year later, with a new policy, winter fuel payments were so good that he wanted to pay them to everyone, not only those who lived here, but those who lived in sunny Spain as well. Instead of being gimmicks, free television licences became so good that he wanted to given them to everyone—even to those without television licences.
	By the election, the hon. Gentleman was on to a new policy—he wanted people to opt out of the basic state pension, the result of which would be that a 16-year-old boy would have to save about £10 a week just to buy back his basic pension. So there is no shortage of inventiveness from the hon. Gentleman, but he said absolutely nothing today.
	In case the hon. Gentleman did say nothing, I looked at the Conservative party's website, which is usually the repository of what a party has to say. It said, "Click for more", so I clicked for more and found out that there is no more. For the benefit of Conservative Members who do not have to hand a personal computer—it is probably against the rules of the House to have a PC in the Chamber—I have a copy of the web page on the Tory party policy, and it is absolutely blank, as hon. Members can see, except for a picture of the dome, for some reason. If that is the Tories' policy, good luck to them.
	It is surprising that the hon. Gentleman had nothing to say, because I happened to glance through the February edition of Pensions Management, which includes an article by him under the odd heading, "Kiss—keep it simple stupid". Indeed, he is to be commended because he has kept it extremely simple. He says:
	"There are far too many pensioners living on low incomes."
	That is from the man who has opposed every measure that we have introduced precisely to help pensioners on low incomes. He might have got away with that if he had said at the same time what his policy was to help pensioners on low incomes share in the rising prosperity of this country, instead of which there is no policy whatever. We are well into this Parliament, and whereas some of his colleagues are coming up with policies here, there and everywhere, we hear not a single word from him on what his policy is.

Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State calls for policies from the Opposition in the first year of Parliament. Will he confirm that the last Conservative Government provided the largest-ever increase in pension funds, whereas he has presided over a very sad decline?

Alistair Darling: I well remember what the last Conservative Government left us. I remember the mis-selling of pensions and the fact that the Conservative Government halved the value of the state earnings-related pension scheme and then forgot to tell anyone that they had done so. I remember that the gap between the better-off pensioners in this country and the poorest widened and that the Conservative Government left 2 million pensioners living in poverty. The hon. Member for Havant clearly also remembers those things because he at least said that something ought to be done about them. My complaint is that he has said absolutely nothing tonight or indeed at any other time when he has been principal Opposition spokesman on pensions about what the Conservative party would do to tackle pensioner poverty.

Steve Webb: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alistair Darling: Yes. I then want to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Havant, but I shall give way to the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the meantime.

Steve Webb: The right hon. Gentleman quoted from February's Pensions Management. An article headed, "Government support slips" appears on page 9. Would he care to comment on the survey that found that Liberal Democrat policies on pensions were the most favoured among pensions experts?

Alistair Darling: I am afraid that the professor who speaks for the Liberal Democrats is a bit behind the times. The article in Pensions Management was probably printed some time before an interview given by the leader of the Liberal Democrat party. On "Breakfast with Frost" on 28 February, he said:
	"What we go into the next general election with may not obviously make sense in terms of what we are saying at a previous general election."
	It is obvious that Liberal Democrat policies are all up for grabs as well. Indeed, I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has to say because the leader of his party has said:
	"We might go into the next election saying we favour lower taxes."
	But the hon. Gentleman wants to spend £3 billion more on pensions alone. If his party leader is right, the hon. Gentleman may well have some difficulty with his policies. I suspect that those who read Pensions Management and similar publications will hold the same view on their pension policies. Everyone knows that the problem with the Liberal Democrats' policies on pensions and everything else is that they simply do not add up.

Howard Flight: rose—

David Willetts: rose—

Alistair Darling: I want to deal with some of the points raised by the Conservative party, and then I shall certainly give way.
	Let me first deal with stakeholder pensions. Interestingly, when we last debated the subject the hon. Member for Havant spoke at great length about the perceived shortcomings of stakeholder pensions, but he was extremely brief tonight, and I am not surprised. I notice that the Conservative party is somewhat divided on its attitude to stakeholder pensions. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who used to speak on pensions for the Conservative party, said:
	"stakeholder is a useful product and the charging cap has a had a beneficial effect. I believe even the industry would acknowledge that."
	So at least some Conservatives believe that stakeholder pensions are a very good addition to the options available to people.
	The hon. Member for Havant, however, glided over the issue of stakeholder pensions. He did not mention the fact that, whereas in October just over 400,000 stakeholder pensions had been sold, the latest figure shows that just under 638,000 have been sold, with nearly 70,000 being sold in December. Therefore, stakeholder pensions are being sold month in and month out. We always said that it would take time for them to be sold. After all, people do not suddenly run out and buy a pension as they would another consumer good. People have to think about a pension and they have to receive the proper advice and so on. However, so far, there are encouraging signs that stakeholder pensions are being sold in the way that we anticipated.
	As I said when we last debated the issue, it is worth bearing in mind that, in addition to stakeholder pensions, new pension sales rose by 9 per cent. in the quarter from July to September and regular premium business rose by 50 per cent. That is encouraging. It shows that the general awareness of pensions and the willingness of people to buy them are increasing. Clearly, there is still a long way to go, but the fact that more than 637,000 pensions have been sold is part of a trend that should be encouraged. It is not surprising that Conservative Members have glided over that point as if, somehow, it did not matter. The last time we debated stakeholder pensions, they spent a considerable time going on about the fact that only 400,000 of them had been sold. Now that the number has increased considerably, they have absolutely nothing to say about the issue.

Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend mentions the impressive figures for stakeholder pensions, but will he take this opportunity to remind people of the equalisation of pension ages that will take place between 2010 and 2020? As I have found in my constituency, that is an important issue, but I am not sure that many people's pension planning has taken account of the equalisation.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which perhaps highlights the problems that arose following the changes to the SERPS rules. It is obvious that all Governments of whatever political colour need to do far more to tell people about pension rules and about changes in pensions. I attach importance to that issue. I suspect that, whereas some people know that the state pension age will start to be equalised from 2010, the vast majority of the population, who tend not to talk about pensions every day of their lives, will not yet be aware of the change. We shall have to attend to that matter. No doubt, members of the Conservative party will complain about the advertising that will be necessary, but we will have to spend a considerable time telling people about that and other changes.

Paul Goodman: According to the Secretary of State's latest figures, what percentage of the stakeholder pensions sold have been sold to the target group? What improvement has there been on the previous distinguished figure of 1 per cent. sold to the target group?

Alistair Darling: The answer is that we will not know until later this year. The Inland Revenue collects the statistics and examines the contracted-out figures and it will know the figures then. It is too early to say what they will be. When stakeholder pensions were introduced, Conservative Members told us that no one would sell them. In fact, many providers are selling the pensions. Conservative Members then said that no one would buy them, but more than 637,000 stakeholder pensions have now been sold. I expect to see the figure improve year on year, but we shall know later this year exactly who has bought them. I will be happy to debate the matter with the hon. Gentleman if he is still here then. [Interruption.] I shall say nothing more on that and proceed.
	The hon. Member for Havant made much of his point about pension funds. It arose from the fact that an article appeared in today's Financial Times, although not in other newspapers despite his best efforts to hawk the story round yesterday, headlined:
	"Tories warn of £100 billion hole in pension funds".
	It is no wonder—especially as the Leader of the Opposition was present for a short time—that the hon. Gentleman was keen to explain how he had got himself into this pickle.
	The hon. Gentleman is, of course, a clever man, but although he had given the story to the Financial Times, the newspaper reported:
	"Mr. Willetts said he suspected a falling stock market and statistical error might be partially responsible for the drop."
	The Office for National Statistics is—as he knows, and as I know to my chagrin sometimes—independent of Government and, this evening, it has withdrawn those figures, because it says that they are not right and that it needs to do more work on them.
	I am sorry that the ONS has done that, but I have no control over it because it is entirely independent of Government. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's problem. He has given the story to a newspaper and he has now had to backtrack because it does not stand up. In fact, the total invested in United Kingdom pensions exceeds £1,000 billion, so he has got it completely wrong yet again. He is now having to explain himself.

David Willetts: rose—

Alistair Darling: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman is going to apologise.

David Willetts: The cheek is quite breathtaking. The Secretary of State, who believed until a month ago that we had £783 billion in our pension funds, produced figures on the same day suggesting that we have £679 billion. This evening, the ONS has withdrawn its figures, because it does not have the faintest idea how much is in pension funds. None the less, the Secretary of State asks us to apologise. He should apologise to the pensioners of this country.

Alistair Darling: The ONS is independent of Government. It produced figures that it now says are wrong. My point is that, yesterday, the hon. Gentleman tried to hawk a story round the journalists of the Sunday newspapers. He managed to get it into the Financial Times, but the Conservative party's central allegation—
	"Tories warn of £100 billion hole"—
	simply does not stand up.

James Gray: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alistair Darling: Perhaps later, but not at the moment.
	I want to deal with some of the other points that the hon. Member for Havant made. He referred to the fall in the proportion of pensioners with income from an occupational pension. I concede that the figure has fallen slightly. It was 60 per cent. according to the last figures, but it is now 59 per cent. We shall have to wait to see whether that is statistically significant but, when one takes the incomes coming from occupational pensions, private pensions and pensions as a whole, the figure is actually 73 per cent. Whatever point he was seeking to make, it does not seem to have much strength.
	The hon. Gentleman's second main point related to something that is undoubtedly true—there has been a decline in the number of people in defined benefit schemes since the mid-1960s. The number has declined for a number of reasons, including the shrinking public sector and the fact that there are no longer so many very large corporations, which typically used to run such pension schemes. Other factors undoubtedly have an effect. The introduction of the international accounting standard—FRS17—no doubt shows up pension funds in company accounts differently from in the past and companies are reacting accordingly.
	There is no doubt that the reforms that the Conservatives introduced in the 1980s, which removed the compulsory nature of employers' schemes and enabled people to contract out, had an adverse effect, as did the changes that they introduced under the Pensions Act 1995. The hon. Gentleman is right: there has been a long-term decline and it has been going on since the 1960s.
	We have done some things that, I hope, will help. For example, the rebate has been increased by £11 billion over the next five years and we have also set up a review—I think that the hon. Gentleman welcomes it because he referred to it in the article in Pensions Management—that is designed to examine the regulatory burden on pensions. I have said before that the fact that some products are tightly regulated and the selling process is also regulated could result in some products becoming more inaccessible than they should be. That is why I asked Alan Pickering, formerly of the National Association of Pension Funds, to produce recommendations on reducing the regulatory burden. That is the right approach.

John Butterfill: I welcome the appointment of Alan Pickering to conduct the review, which has been long delayed by the Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, according to the NAPF, the principal reason for the decline in such final salaries schemes is the impact of the increased regulatory burden, especially in the past five years?

Alistair Darling: To be fair to the NAPF, it also attributes the long-term decline, which has been going on since the 1960s, to a number of causes. I have made it clear several times that we should now look at the regulatory regime. For good reasons, successive Governments have introduced regulations to prevent mis-selling, especially after the scandalous events of the 1980s. If products are regulated—stakeholder pensions are an example of a product that is fairly tightly regulated—and the selling process is regulated, we could have too much regulation and the product might become inaccessible. Other matters, such as the contracted-out rebate regime, need to be considered. Alan Pickering is doing that and we will have his report later this year.
	The hon. Member for Havant did not mention annuities, which is surprising given that he feels so strongly about them. The consultation document on annuities, which was mentioned in the pre-Budget report, will be published by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue tomorrow. I hope that it will provide an opportunity for people to examine the options and will encourage them to save more for their retirement. It should also give them the chance to understand annuitisation better and consider the options on offer so that they make the right choices.
	Although we will maintain the principle that for most people annuities are the best way to ensure security in retirement, we are prepared to consider options for change. We are determined to ensure that any changes will increase the retirement income that people can expect to receive through an annuity. We also want to ensure that the funds that are saved with the benefit of tax relief are used to provide a secure income in retirement. It is not our aim that people who have money saved for their retirement and who become entitled to income-related benefits should not use their pension for the purpose for which it was intended. The consultation paper will be published jointly by the Economic Secretary and me tomorrow and no doubt we will return to it.

Robert Smith: I want to clarify an issue that a constituent recently raised with me. His company pension scheme will give him a reasonable pension. He has also invested in a free-standing additional voluntary contribution and has been told that because of various rules he has to take out the annuity at 65. His argument is that the company pension scheme will give him a reasonable basic retirement income and he wants to keep reinvesting to save up an additional sum so that he has something to fall back on when he is in his seventies and may be in greater need of it. Will that be dealt with in the review?

Alistair Darling: We will give the hon. Gentleman and his constituent ample opportunity to make representations. For obvious reasons, I am wary of giving advice, especially across the Floor of the House, on the hon. Gentleman's constituent—not least because I am not authorised to do so under the Financial Services Act 1986. The document sets out the options that might improve the annuities market. The Government remain of the view, however, that the principle of annuitisation is important. We are determined to ensure that any changes that we implement benefit the majority of the pensioner population. As I said during Question Time last week, it would be a great pity to make changes that benefited only a handful of people, especially if that had an adverse effect on the pensioner population as a whole. The document sets out the principles against which we will judge any changes. The hon. Gentleman and his constituent will have ample opportunity to consult. The object of the consultation exercise is to ensure that we receive representations with a view to legislating in this year's Finance Bill.
	On pension credit, the Conservatives' ambivalence is again becoming apparent. We do not know from Conservatives Members—at least, those in this House—whether they are for or against it. I am convinced that it is high time that we ended the anomaly in the social security system. It is nonsense that had pensioners done everything that successive Governments asked them to do, they would have lost out. I was especially pleased that on Second Reading of the State Pension Credit Bill in the other place, one of my predecessors, the noble Lord Fowler, said:
	"To be frank, I should have preferred it if my government had introduced the pension credit . . . It is long overdue, and my hope is that it will provide support for some of the most deserving people in this country."
	I can think of worse references. Indeed, Lord Higgins, who speaks for the Conservatives in the upper House, said about the pension credit:
	"we welcome the increase in money for pensioners . . . The change in capital limits is welcome, as is the abolition of the weekly means test . . . Extra money for pensioners is obviously a good thing".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2001; Vol. 630, c. 147-165.]
	One might have thought that if it is good enough for the Conservatives in the upper House, it is good enough for the Conservatives in this House. However, we shall wait to see what they have to say on that. The Conservatives chose not to go into the last general election promising to take £200 off every pensioner voter by getting rid of the winter fuel payment, so I find it hard to believe that they will go to nearly half the pensioner households in this country and say that they intend to scrap the pension credit, which could cost some pensioners more than £400 a year.
	As I said in response to an intervention, our pension policy has to be seen in the context of what we inherited. Too many pensioners were living in poverty; about two in five people of working age were making no voluntary provision for retirement; and too many people were not saving enough. Not enough was being done for the low paid, people with broken work records, the widowed or the divorced. We have put in place reforms to help all those people. Above all, with the pension credit, we are removing the disincentives in the social security system that hit pensioners with modest savings or modest occupational pensions who should be rewarded for their effort and thrift, not penalised because of it.
	We have tackled pensioner poverty through the minimum income guarantee, which the Conservatives have always opposed. As a result of that, some of the poorest pensioners will be at least £20 a week better off than they would have been under the Conservatives. We reformed the state earnings-related pension scheme through the state second pension, from which 18 million people will gain. We have introduced new savings options, such as individual savings accounts—again, condemned by the Tories when they were introduced—and stakeholder pensions. We are ensuring that it pays to save. All those changes are necessary.
	My final point is that, almost gratuitously, the hon. Member for Havant commented on public services. It is difficult to understand where that fits into the Conservative party's pension policy. All I can say is that the Conservative party, its leader and its shadow Chancellor are committed to reducing public spending to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product, which equates to about £60 billion—almost as much as we spend on health or education. [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not like it when I point out their policies—some are agreeing, some are saying that I am wrong. No wonder they are a bit unhappy. They have to face up to the fact that no matter what they say about public services, if we cut investment the quality of service—whether it is health, education or pensions—will suffer.
	We believe that public investment in pensions and other public services is justified and necessary. We will carry on with it and make the necessary reforms along the way. It is just a pity that the Conservatives do not face up to what their policies mean. After all, they have only to contrast what happened in their 18 years in government and the mess that they left behind with the difference that we are making to millions of people in this country.

Steve Webb: I congratulate the Conservatives on raising such an important topic and broadly support their motion. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) rightly referred to the amount of money in funded pensions, which is the linchpin of the Government's pension strategy. They have described occupational pension provision as the great success story of the welfare state. If private provision is to form not 40 but 60 per cent. of final retirement provision in years to come, we clearly need a growing foundation in the private sector.
	That is why at the beginning of last week I tabled a question to the Secretary of State querying the dubious figures on the amount of money going into funded pensions. The Minister for Pensions has cited the figures repeatedly—in good faith, I am sure—but they have never quite rung true. They have always seemed a bit fishy. So, at the start of last week I asked him to break down those figures and to say where they came from. It will not surprise the House to learn that I have received a holding answer. Whether it was my intervention or that of the hon. Member for Havant that prompted the Office for National Statistics to withdraw its statistics, it is clear that the revision is so radical and so queries the fundamental basis of the Government's claims that we need accurate figures. The hon. Gentleman raised an important issue.
	The Government's attitude to pension provision is best characterised by the complacent washing of their hands wherever any criticism is levelled, particularly with regard to private provision.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was appallingly complacent of the Government, knowing that the figures were different by £100 billion not to ask the ONS why? What were they doing?

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right; the Government are complacent. They say that they want to rely increasingly on the private sector, which still means predominantly occupational pension provision, but when asked questions about occupational provision, they say, "That is for companies and the market to decide."
	To give an example, the Secretary of State mentioned the FRS17 accounting standard, which is having a profound effect on company pension provision. Pensions Management, to which he referred, highlighted the fact that most pensions professionals cite that as the single biggest issue in pension provision. However, when I tabled a question to the Treasury about FRS17, the answer came back that that was a matter for the Accounting Standards Board, as if it were nothing to do with Government.

Alistair Darling: Well it is.

Steve Webb: The Secretary of State may say, "Well it is," but if the Government are to rely increasingly on private provision, most of which will be occupational, and that provision is being undermined, resulting in lower not higher coverage, they cannot just sit and watch. If they have a target, they must have the means to achieve it.
	The Government have watched such things go on. The Secretary of State referred to the long-term trend towards a decline in final salary schemes, but is it accelerating? Do the Government know? I am happy to give way if the Secretary of State knows the answer. One assumes that such schemes are declining. Given that major employers are closing their final salary schemes to new employees, one would imagine that that was so. If the industrial restructuring that the Secretary of State is talking about is carrying on, one would imagine that that was so. Do they know? Do they care? Are they doing anything? We have had no answer.
	The theme of the debate is the disappointment caused by Government pension policies. I want to highlight just three quite large groups of people who will be let down and disappointed by the Government's pension policy.

Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman seems to share the aspiration to increase the proportion of private pension provision, and I am surprised by that. Nobody has yet said how that is to be achieved. Does he agree that the only way to achieve it would be to make pension provision compulsory? If so, does that not raise the question of which provides better value for money, a compulsory private pension or increased spending by the state?

Steve Webb: The hon. Lady raises a series of important and relevant points. I shall come to the compulsion issue in a second. I would like good-quality occupational provision to be expanded rather than cut as part of the process. For example, the Government should look at why people who would previously have had a final salary scheme are now no longer allowed entry to such schemes, and they should try to reverse that trend so that more people for whom it is appropriate can get good-quality occupational provision.
	The hon. Lady is right to suggest that there will be people who do not have access to such provision. In that case, in old age there needs to be a good foundation of both state and private provision for as many people as possible—because both have risks. State provision, as history has shown us, is liable to be ripped up by successive Governments and does not provide any real guarantee, while private provision is subject to the vagaries of the capital market and various other uncertainties. Both are uncertain; neither provides a guarantee, and that is why we want a foundation for both for as many people as possible.
	The first of the three groups that have been let down by the Government on pension provision has to be women. Women have historically had a very bad deal from pension provision and are likely to lose out in future. One reason—it relates to the point that the hon. Lady mentioned—is the 60 per cent. private target. One danger is that private pension provision in old age very much reflects the working experience of people. If there is to be an emphasis on private provision, how will the Government stop the inequalities from which women suffered in the work place filtering through into old age?
	One group of women have done quite well out of the Government's pension policy: the wives of rich men. I have nothing against the wives of rich men. I have no problem with husbands buying them pensions, given that they may not still be married when they retire. However, if that is the main group that has benefited from the Government's policies, something is missing.

Tim Boswell: Targeting.

Steve Webb: Indeed. Clearly, there is a danger that with enhanced reliance on the private sector and without a clear strategy, women will lose out.
	Let us consider the stakeholder pension. When people take out a stakeholder pension, they have to buy an annuity with it. Although some small part of the pension buys a unisex annuity, most of that pension will be smaller for women. So, although women are living longer and therefore receiving a comparable amount over their lives, the amount that they have to live on each week will be smaller.
	We have heard nothing from the Government on how or whether they intend to address that. The stakeholder pension is intended particularly for people on modest incomes, so not a lot will be going into it in the first place. If it is then lower for women, they will lose out. Do the Government have any strategy for women's pensions in that respect?

John Butterfill: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the recent report by the Association of Consulting Actuaries on the position of women in occupational pension schemes? It says that whereas 21 per cent. of full-time working women did not have occupational schemes in 1989, the figure is now 26 per cent. So, 5 per cent. more women do not have an occupational scheme now compared with 1989.

Steve Webb: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about these matters and highlights the problem. The Government say that reliance on the private sector is a key part of their strategy, but they do not seem to know or care about what is going on, even if things are going backwards for women and other groups.
	Women are vulnerable not just in private sector provision. The Government have trumpeted their measures on state provision. Increases in the minimum income guarantee will go predominantly to poorer pensioners, many of whom are women, and that is to be welcomed, but what about those who do not take up their entitlement, who are also predominantly women? The Government's obsessive emphasis on the means-tested strand, at the great expense of the universal strand, is prejudiced against women, because they will take up their pension but will not necessarily take up their minimum income guarantee. That is why our party remains committed to the basic state pension, particularly for older pensioners, many of whom are women and all of whom take up their entitlement.
	I am surprised that the Government have not mentioned much about the state second pension, which is another element of their strategy. Again, it is claimed as a great thing for women, with credits and all the rest of it. In 40 or 50 years' time, if the policy survives that long, it might be such a great thing. However, for anybody already at pension age, it is irrelevant, and for those who are 10 or 20 years below pension age, it will make precious little difference. Therefore, we are talking really only about 30 or 40 years down the track. Such changes are likely to be ripped up and restructured many times during that period. So, women cannot be sure of an enhanced pension through that scheme. It is too complicated and bound to be revised again and again. I should like to give one example in that regard.
	When the state second pension was introduced, we said that it was not enough and that it would not bring pensioners, together with the basic pension, above the means test. The Government said, "Nonsense; it is adequate," yet they have now introduced a pension credit. Therefore, someone who has made no voluntary saving and has only the basic state pension and the state second pension will receive a top-up through the pension credit to bring their combined income to a better level because the scheme that the Government have introduced was not good enough. If the Government have to rewrite the rules just two years after they have introduced them, what hope is there that such a scheme will be in place in 40 years' time? Women are missing out because of the Government's pension strategy.
	In "The House Magazine" this week, the Secretary of State wrote an article about pension provision and looked at the long-term future for the group to which I have just referred. He said:
	"The key to people having a decent pension in retirement is getting today's twenty-somethings to start putting their money away as early as possible. To this end, we have introduced stakeholder pensions and are reforming SERPS with the State Second Pension."
	Clearly, 20-year-olds are all down the Dog and Duck or wherever they go, discussing the state second pension and its reform. I wonder whether the Secretary of State, who I assume wrote the article, can tell us how many 20-year-olds have bought stakeholder pensions? I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he is able to provide that figure—but, of course, he has no idea. [Interruption.] He says that he told us earlier, but what he said earlier is that the Government do not know and will not know for some time. The article says that 20-year-olds will be okay because there are stakeholder pensions, but he does not have a clue whether any 20-year-olds have bought a stakeholder pension—such is the Government's complacency about pensions.
	Women are not the only ones who lose out from the Government's proposals. Those who want to retire in a phased way, instead of going over the current cliff edge of retirement, also miss out because of the Government's policy. In the same article, the Secretary of State expresses all the usual platitudes about early retirement or flexible retirement. He writes:
	"The UK's employment and early retirement culture urgently needs to change. That's why we have introduced a number of policies to help these changes along and start tackling ageism".
	Here is one of those crushing policies:
	"We have . . . sent out 75,000 copies of the voluntary Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment, which points out the benefits of an age diverse workforce."
	Let us imagine the scene in offices throughout the land as the Government leaflet drops on the mat and people say, "Oh, we hadn't thought of that. Employing older people will help us, so let's rush out and employ them." What nonsense. The Government are dragging their heels on legislating in respect of age discrimination. They are doing as little as possible and delaying until the last possible moment.
	What can be done? Bizarrely, one can spend one's life working for one firm, Tesco, then retire from Tesco, draw a private occupational pension and go to work for Sainsbury—that is allowed; but one cannot retire from a life working for Tesco and then go to work part-time for Tesco, as that is not allowed. In the latter case, the Inland Revenue says that one has not really retired, so one cannot have one's pension with its tax privileges. That is absolutely barmy.
	If, as the Secretary of State—or whoever wrote the article—claims, the Government want people to go on working longer, perhaps past state pension age, should not the Government be helping people to phase their retirement? Should not people be able to draw their pension while doing some part-time work? Should they not have flexibility and choice? No—the Inland Revenue rules the roost. On flexible retirement, the Government sound great, but there is no sign of action.
	If anything, retirement is happening earlier, not later. Far too many people who would like to continue working and phase in their retirement are forced to stop work. Despite reports and reviews, the Government have nothing to say on the issue.

Andrew Selous: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's highly enjoyable speech. Does he agree that it was regrettable that when the issue of age discrimination was raised in the House, in the form of a Labour Back Bencher's proposal for an age discrimination commission, the Government passed up the opportunity to do something positive, saying that Europe would provide the answer in a couple of years' time?

Steve Webb: It was regrettable that that opportunity was not grasped. The Government are doing everything they can to slow down the introduction of legislation. People are suffering from age discrimination now, yet the Government are dragging their heels and making matters worse.
	A third group of pensioners who have not been mentioned so far—a group who are losing out because of the Government's mean spiritedness—are those who are entitled not to widows' pensions, but to widowers' pensions. The Government have been found out: only this week, a court case resulted in a ruling that a woman who was bereaved would get a widow's pension, a widow's benefits and tax allowances, whereas a man in the same position would not. The Government have legislated for the future, but what about the people who have been discriminated against for years? The Government settled the case out of court to avoid setting a precedent, but I have constituents who are widowers and who ought to be entitled to benefits and pensions.
	I will give the Minister for Pensions the benefit of the doubt and hope that he will respond to the debate, and specifically to that point. I live in hope—but he is smiling knowingly at me, so perhaps I should not. Will the Government evade their responsibilities or will they recognise that there is an injustice that must be remedied? Will they do something about widowers, especially those with children, who have missed out?
	Previously, I alluded to that fine magazine, Pensions Management. It reports the result of a survey on political parties' records on pensions policy, and it is worth summing up for the House what those who know about pensions are saying. Those who responded to the survey are those who run pensions. They have—is it £600 billion or £700 billion? Who knows? It is certainly plenty of money, and the figures have lots of noughts. Such people are the linchpin of the Government's pensions strategy, because if 60 per cent. of people's income in old age is to come from the private sector, the vast bulk will be derived from the occupational pensions sector. The people who answered the survey know what they are talking about it—and if they do not, the Government are in trouble.
	Those people were asked which party has the most appealing and effective pensions policies, not pensions spokesman—and at this point I have to disappoint and part company slightly with the Conservatives. In February 2002, the survey indicated that 7 per cent. of respondents thought that the Conservative party had the most appealing and effective pensions policies—which is not bad for a party that has none at all—and 9 per cent. chose the Labour party. With all due modesty, I should say that the figure for the Liberal Democrat party was not large; however, at 14 per cent., it was double that for the Conservatives. Let us remember that the people who were asked that question know what they are talking about—and if they do not, we are all in trouble. It is a salutary lesson for us all that "None of the above" was the runaway winner.
	Perhaps we should reflect on the fact that if we all continue to change our policies—the Government seem to change theirs with the wind—if none of us settle, and if we do not achieve an all-party consensus, no one will have the security they need to plan for their old age. In the past, we tried to talk to the Government about pensions, but they have their rigid strategy of means-testing, and that is the approach that they will take. That is regrettable, but it is not too late for them to repent of that strategy. If we work together, perhaps in future those who run pensions and those who receive them will think better of all of us.

Frank Field: I, like many Labour Members, am grateful to the Opposition for the spirit in which they framed tonight's motion. On many aspects of that motion, a fair number of us agree with the official Opposition, but the lack of generosity in its drafting shows how far the Conservative party has to go before the electorate will once again start to listen to it.
	The big divide between the Government and the Opposition is that, despite criticism of the Government's strategy, most of the electorate believe that the Government's heart is in the right place. The Government's effort to help the poorest pensioners the most is one with which most voters agree. The Opposition still stand charged at the bar of public opinion with being a party that, when in government, was successful in ensuring that richer workers gained more adequate pension provision on retirement, whereas those who had fewer assets were less fairly dealt with. Had the motion taken notice of the marked change in the temper of the debate that the Government have brought about, some Labour Members might have gone into the Lobby to support it this evening.
	There is real concern among Labour Members—I am not the only one who feels it—about the direction of Government policy in significantly increasing the number of people on some form of means-tested assistance. I do not believe that that is a sustainable policy in the long run. That will be the single focus of my contribution to the debate. The difficulties that the Government are getting into because of their adoption of means-testing become all too apparent when we read their consultation document on the pension credit.
	When the Government introduced the minimum income guarantee, many hon. Members on both sides of the House pointed out that a considerable number of our constituents who were doing everything that previous Governments and the current Government had asked them to do—that is, save for their retirement—would probably make themselves worse off. Initially, the Government denied that. Then, thank goodness, there was a Pauline conversion—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is mumbling, but I can give him evidence; perhaps this can be followed up by letter.
	After a Pauline conversion, the Government decided to introduce a further means test—on the pension credit—to overcome the disadvantages that some pensioners, perhaps a significant number, faced and would face in future because of the minimum income guarantee. The pension credit became urgent when the Government linked their strategy to the sale of stakeholder pensions. It is clear that at least half the members of the target group could make themselves worse off by buying a stakeholder pension instead of not doing so, spending all their money and relying on the minimum income guarantee on retirement.
	To overcome that difficulty and reward people for saving, the Government intend to introduce a pension credit scheme. I merely wish to point to where that policy is going and to draw attention to how unsustainable it is. The sooner we admit that, the sooner we shall acquit ourselves of any charge in future that we were a party to pension mis-selling.
	I do not believe that the State Pension Credit Bill is sustainable. We shall go into the next general election with the working families tax credit and the beginnings of the pension credit, forgoing a reduction of 5p in the standard rate of tax to foot the bill for the tax credits up to the next election. There has been no debate about whether that is the best strategy or the right strategy, and such a debate is overdue. There are many who might feel that the objectives of the minimum income guarantee could be better met by a mixture of pension increases and tax cuts than by the model that the Government have adopted.
	I wish to take us forward to 2050. I direct attention, as the Government rightly argue in their consultation document, taking into account current prices, to what the bill will be for taxpayers if the link with earnings is maintained. If it is not to be maintained, we should tell people quickly that stakeholder pensions will become more attractive because the pension credit will become less attractive.
	If we take the Government's figures and move to 2050, the end of the period covered by their consultation document, the cost of paying the pension credit, if it is linked to earnings in the meantime, will be the equivalent of 11p on the standard rate of tax, at today's prices. Does anyone think that we shall fight elections to maintain that sort of tax increase? I do not. For that reason, I do not believe that the link will be maintained. If it is not to be maintained, we should say that quickly. People will be deciding whether to save or not, and their decisions will be based on whether they think that the Government's proposals are viable in the longer run.
	An alternative to the spending of the sum that will be committed to pension credits over the time span that we are contemplating would be to increase by more than half the amount that we spend on the national health service. Are we seriously thinking about going into elections with a commitment that will so restrict our ability to spend money? Do we wish to tie ourselves into pension credits when those sums could be spent in alternative ways?
	We might wish to see that money spent on the standard retirement pension. At the end of the period outlined by the Government, we would have enough money to raise every pensioner above the minimum income guarantee in that year. Would not that be a better strategy than one that is reinforcing the means-testing strategy? In the longer run, that strategy will defeat the Government. People will adapt their behaviour to make the best of whatever framework the Government lay down. They are sensible and it is proper for them to take that approach. They should not be condemned for taking it.
	Whether it is desirable in the longer run that people decide that they should save less because they cannot make themselves better off by saving, and that they should in future depend more on the minimum income guarantee and pension credit, is a question that will increase in urgency as the years pass by.
	I thank the Opposition this evening for being so mean-spirited that they could not recognise both the efforts that the Government have made to look after the poorest pensioners and their commitment to do so, even if some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are increasingly wary about the strategy that they have adopted. This is not the place to exchange views about who is right and who is wrong. Events will show us who is right. Given the sums that will be involved in maintaining the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings—equally important is the pension credit being in line with earnings—these will be unsustainable objectives in the long run.
	As we come to the end of this Parliament, it will not be the Opposition who are asked about their position. We shall be asked by our electorate whether in the next Parliament we shall increase these two means-tested benefits in line with earnings. If we give in because we are worried about losing votes, we shall undermine still further the chance that many decent working people have who are urged to look after themselves and save for the future. We shall make the pensions problem that has been illustrated in the debate even worse than it is now.
	The timing will be of the Government's own choosing, but the sooner we say that while we have introduced these two important initiatives, the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit, and given them a boost by the link with earnings, they will not be sustainable in the longer run, the better. People will then know where they are. They will have a certainty that they do not have now. In the long term, we will have more rather than fewer people saving for their retirement.

John Butterfill: I frequently follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in debates on this subject. He is being a little less than charitable to most of my right hon. and hon. Friends. When we last debated these issues, I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends agreed that the Government had probably acted from the best of motives in introducing stakeholder schemes and pension credit. We said, however, that the probable outcome would not be what they intended. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's speech illustrates better than the contributions of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the previous debate the difficulties that attach to what the Government are proposing. Indeed, I have long been an advocate of compulsory—

Frank Field: That was not my objection; I was arguing that the motion showed a lack of generosity of spirit.

John Butterfill: Perhaps that is the way that politics is today.
	An element of compulsion is inevitable if we are to achieve the objectives that we would all like to achieve, although, as I shall demonstrate, as long as we retain the existing annuity regime, compulsion is not a viable alternative because people will rebel against it.
	Our great difficulty at the moment is that occupational schemes, which historically have been the mainstay of savings for retirement, are declining at an alarming and accelerating rate.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the more the Government send out the message that such schemes are the responsibility of Government, the less likely it is that employers will continue their historic role in occupational schemes, based on the belief that a decent occupational pension scheme is part of the pay that they give their workers and the conditions that they provide in an enlightened work place?

John Butterfill: That is certainly a danger. The Government have been sending out adverse signals on occupational pensions schemes, and some of their actions have been more serious. I recommend to the House the excellent document produced by the Association of Consulting Actuaries, "Pensions in Smaller Firms Survey 2001". Such firms employ 250 people or fewer, and their work force constitutes 55 per cent. of the total in this country. The document is sub-headed "Occupational Pensions: the End of an Era?" The ACA is seriously worried that occupational pensions, as we have come to know them, are in terminal decline.

Bill Tynan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Butterfill: I would like to make more progress, as I have taken rather a lot of interventions and been unable to develop my argument coherently. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue a little longer.
	We have received representations, including a briefing from the National Association of Pension Funds dated 1 February, which states:
	"46 companies had closed their final salary scheme to new members"
	during the current year to October, compared with 18 that closed in the previous year. The briefing continues:
	"13 schemes had switched from final salary to money purchase",
	compared with six in 2000. The trend is therefore accelerating. Unfortunately, that involves not only the smaller firms to which the ACA referred, but the very largest firms in the country, including Lloyds TSB, J. Sainsbury's, BT, Marks and Spencer, Whitbread and British Airways, all of which have gone down that route. Surely, that is an alarming prospect for the Government.
	Some reasons for the trend have already been alluded to by previous speakers, but are worth repeating and emphasising. The NAPF and the ACA believe that the biggest single problem is bureaucracy and red tape, particularly additional burdens incurred as a result of Government action in the past five years. To be fair, the Pensions Act 1995—it was passed, with the best of intentions, by my own party to deal with perceived problems, particularly following Maxwell, and to impose safeguards for those who were the beneficiaries of such schemes—in many ways compounded the problem. At the time, I argued that the cost of regulation would be unnecessarily high. I also argued that the cost of policing the system and ensuring compliance should not fall on firms providing the pensions; I said that the Government should accept that responsibility, thereby reducing the cost for employers. Otherwise, we would drive employers away from making such provision which, I am afraid, has proved to be the case.
	I very much welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State of the appointment last autumn of Alan Pickering. An urgent review of the burden of regulation, and the possibility that the Government may still take over some costs, especially regulation costs, may yet prevent firms leaving the scheme altogether. FRS17 has already been referred to; the problem is not the Government's fault, as accounting standards are nothing to do with them, although they have an input in the measure, which brings us into line with US accounting standards. However, its short-term impact is extremely negative.
	The real difficulties have arisen by various routes. The changes in advance corporation tax were profoundly damaging. I am not sure that Labour Members appreciate the scale of the damage that was done by them. Tesco's scheme, for example, had to increase total contributions by 15 per cent. to compensate for the cost of the ACT changes. That is one firm alone, which has now come out of a final salary scheme and gone into a defined contributions scheme. The lower investment returns have not helped, nor has increased life expectancy, earlier retirement or gaps in working careers. All those factors make the situation of occupational pensions much more difficult. The Government must act to make pension provision easier and more attractive for employers. Everything that the Government have done over the years that they have been in power has had the reverse effect on employers.
	The other possible route to help with pension provision is private provision. If we do not make it compulsory, we must encourage individuals to save for their retirement, but again we run into all sorts of circumstances arising from the existing legislation which make that profoundly unattractive. The least attractive of all is the annuities regime. The requirement to put all one's savings into an annuity at the end of the day, regardless of what one's life expectancy may be at the time, and regardless of the fact that one may wish to leave money to dependent relatives, is a profound disincentive.
	In correspondence with me, Ministers have suggested that the problem of annuities affects only the very rich. That is not true, although it is true that only those with above-average earnings tend to take out private provision. That could be altered in all sorts of ways, which we could discuss later. These people are not the very rich; they are the modestly off, for the most part. Only a tiny minority are the very rich about whom the Treasury is concerned.
	I know that the Association of British Insurers recently produced a report supporting the Government in their position on annuities. However, the members of the ABI are the principal providers of annuities—in fact, the only providers—and it might be thought that they could conceivably have a vested interest in maintaining a product from which they make considerable profit.
	The Government statistics hide the fact that millions are deterred by the annuity requirements from taking out pension policies at all. It is significant that many, many young people, who write to me because I am known to take an interest in these matters, tell me that they will not take out a policy because of those restrictions, and that they will instead turn to buy-to-let, for example.
	One reason why so many young people with surplus earnings are buying properties on the buy-to-let scheme—there has been an enormous and unhealthy growth in that; it has gone much too far—is that they see it as a more realistic way of saving than going through pensions. They are doing so without tax relief. They say, "Blow the tax relief. It is not worth having the tax relief, if those are the restrictions." That is a sad reflection on the present situation, which we must change.
	The chairman of the ACA states in the conclusion of his report:
	"We are also growing very concerned that the drift away from 'good' occupational arrangements is accelerating towards a trot, if not quite a gallop."
	The situation is urgent, but the Government seem to think that there is nothing terribly wrong.
	Unfortunately, as we have all seen, the take-up of stakeholder pensions to date has been extremely disappointing. We all hope that it may get better. In my view, it has had only one good effect—driving down charges.

Frank Field: It is a very big one.

John Butterfill: Indeed, it is a very big improvement and it has been extremely valuable, but it was a side effect rather than the main reason for introducing the stakeholder pension.
	I am concerned that the thrust of Government policy is to take us further and further down the dependency route. It is now estimated that by 2050, the combination of minimum income guarantee and pension credit will mean that 65 per cent. of all pensioners will be on some sort of means-tested benefit. I do not believe that that is the Government's intention, but that is where they will be headed unless they do something about it—and soon.

James Purnell: People of my age are not really all that interested in pensions. In fact, I only recently found out quite how uninterested they are. Having spent the weekend with the hon. Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and for Northavon (Mr. Webb) at Ditchley park for a conference on pensions policy—on reflection, perhaps that does not make me all that typical of thirty-somethings.—the following Sunday evening, at a dinner with friends and flushed with the excitement of discussing actuarial projections of the forthcoming population bulge, I decided to try to interest my fellow diners in the implications for pensions policy. There was a short embarrassed silence, after which the conversation immediately returned to football.
	The issue of pensions should be at the centre of modern politics, however. When Labour came to power, about 2 million people were earning less than £70 a week. From next April, the minimum income guarantee will ensure that they earn £100 a week. It is often said that politics does not make any difference to people, but that £30 will make a genuine difference. Although it may not seem an enormous amount to broadsheet column writers, who often spend more than that on lunch each day, for the people of my constituency, it will often eliminate the difference between being able to shop properly and buy presents for their grandchildren or being able to heat their homes.
	Given the lack of interest on the part of journalists in tonight's debate, it is unlikely that every single word of it will be repeated in the papers, but people did not always find pensions policy uninteresting or difficult to understand. When the Beveridge report was printed, about 200,000 copies were sold. I read that people queued around the block in Kingsway to get copies from HMSO. Beveridge himself became a broadcasting celebrity and could be heard on radio even more often than the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) today. Of course, Beveridge would probably be gyrating in his grave if he could see what successive Governments have done to his plans. He expected almost everyone to benefit from the basic state pension, with national assistance reserved for the very few. Successive Governments of both parties have engineered a situation in which, for the past 25 years, about 1.7 million people have been claiming means-tested benefits—a significant number, at just under one sixth of all pensioners. Beveridge expected the basic state pension to provide subsistence, but I defy anyone in the House to try to live on £72.50 a week these days.
	Why has this happened? It would be easy to play the game of party politics and try to assign blame to one side or the other, but the problems were inherent in the system that Beveridge bequeathed to us. He never defined the level of subsistence even in theory, and in practice, successive Governments have been unable to afford to provide a basic state pension at a level that would offer subsistence. Governments have therefore faced a choice of either leaving the poorest pensioners in poverty or targeting money at them. The more generous the means-tested benefits, however, the more pensioners will be affected and the more we risk the problem identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in terms of disincentives to save.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful contribution, but he elided the gap between targeting those most in need to means-testing. Does he accept that an alternative method of targeting those in need is targeting the oldest pensioners, the vast majority of whom are among the poorest? That would avoid the problems of means-testing.

James Purnell: That is an interesting point, and I am interested in other ways of targeting those most in need. However, a Government could not rely purely on the policy that the hon. Gentleman suggests, because it would omit people outside a specific age group and perpetuate the problem of benefiting richer pensioners, although they are few.
	What did Beveridge plan for our society? He expected most women to stay at home and their husbands to be employed and thus to provide for them. He failed to provide for the growing number of carers, and for people who are unemployed, take career breaks, change jobs and have been unable, through state or private provision, to build up sufficient income for retirement.
	Those basic problems have plagued Ministers with responsibility for pensions since 1945, and many of the resultant reforms have failed. I do not know how many people today remember Boyd-Carpenter's reforms to the second state pension, which involved different levels and an earnings-related element. How many people remember the Labour Government's attempt in the 1960s to introduce a minimum income pension, which was much like our minimum income guarantee?
	Many Ministers have come up against the stark reality of pensions policy—

John Butterfill: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about Beveridge. I am sure that he knows that Beveridge proposed building up a fund at the outset and making no distributions until an adequate amount had been accumulated. The post-war Labour Government rejected that recommendation, and that created many problems for subsequent Ministers.

James Purnell: That is exactly the case. I believe that Jim Griffiths made the decision because, at the end of 1945, after Britain had won the war, he did not believe that a Government could tell people who had suffered for the past 50 years from a system that was partial and left many dependent on charity from the National Assistance Board that they would have to wait another 10 or 15 years for contributions to be built up. I therefore understand the reason for the decision and I doubt whether any hon. Member proposes adopting the system that Beveridge was planning.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman appeared to be slightly critical of Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who devised opting out, on which all private sector provision since 1958 has been built. Does he not agree that, whether the figure is £600 billion or £700 billion, it is due to the work of Lord Boyd-Carpenter?

James Purnell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was not criticising Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who established a principle. However, I believe that it was a slightly panicked and inadequate response by the then Government to Dick Crossman's work for the Labour party in opposition, and in practice, it failed to deliver. We had to wait for a Labour Government to introduce SERPS, which tackled the matter two decades later.
	Pensions reform is rarely considered a success. The costs are felt immediately, but the benefits are not experienced until a Government have long passed into history. The objectives of pensions policy are mutually contradictory, and there are always losers. Even when a Government get something right, it is often too complicated for people to understand at the time.
	Against that background, far from being a failure, the Government's policy will be adjudged by history a significant success. It has been expensive—about £6 billion by next year—but poor pensioners can now be sure that, for at least the rest of this Parliament, the minimum income guarantee will increase in line with earnings. That is a major change from what we inherited. Some who claim to argue on behalf of the poorest pensioners argue for a return to the linking of the basic state pension with earnings, but that would benefit those people less by reducing the amount of money available.

Tim Boswell: I know that the hon. Gentleman has advised Ministers over the years, as indeed did I at one stage. Will he advise the Secretary of State to extend that guarantee beyond the current Parliament?

James Purnell: No Government can make proposals for a Parliament for which they have not been elected. It is certainly right that we have made the promise for the rest of this five-year term, and we will no doubt consider it again when we write our manifesto.
	I do not mind pleading guilty to the charge that the Government have increased means-testing. Faced with a choice between spreading the £6 billion among all pensioners and targeting some of it on the poorest pensioners, through the minimum income guarantee, I would be proud to choose the latter. The important issue is not the number of pensioners whose income is assessed but whether the assessment undermines dignity.
	The means test gained a bad reputation in the early part of the 20th century, when it meant frequent visits by the means-test men and detailed interrogations about household income, including even a youngster's paper round or anything that an elderly relative who came to live with the family might possess. I believe that George Orwell called the means test an encouragement to tittle-tattle and to the informer. A neighbour's jealousy about a new coat or pair of shoes could lead to a visit from the means-test men. It is not surprising that so many people grew up absolutely dedicated to ensuring that they would never have to rely on the means test, which at that time was genuinely a matter of shame.
	The reticence of many pensioners today about claiming their entitlement stems from their memories of those days. Unfortunately, that reticence will not be eased by this debate and Opposition claims that the increase in means-testing is in itself a bad thing. In that sense, this debate will not in any way encourage people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled.
	It is important to start to change the language that we use about means-testing. Pensioners are entitled to these benefits, which are no longer a quasi-charitable donation to them in their old age. They have paid for them through their taxes, just as they have paid for the basic state pension. We should tell them that they should claim this income as of right. Moreover, rather than scaring them about means-testing, we should make it clear to them that the procedure for claiming the minimum income guarantee, and the pension credit when it comes into force, has been significantly simplified: the form has been cut from 40 pages to 10, and people claiming the credit will be assessed on their income not every week but only once every five years. They will be asked to provide the information at the time of claiming the basic state pension, so a far larger number will receive the credit automatically.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman said that pensioners would be assessed every five years. Will he comment on how they will fare when their circumstances change within the five-year period? Are there not real difficulties in coping with those circumstances?

James Purnell: It is an important point, but Baroness Hollis answered it in the other House when she made it clear that there are only four or five circumstances that will require reassessment: the death of a partner; moving overseas; moving house; and another one or two that escape me. We must have some flexibility in the system to allow such major changes to be taken into account—we can do that in a simple way—but the important thing is that the vast majority of pensioners will be assessed only once every five years, which makes the means test much simpler than it was.
	My noble Friend also made it clear that a huge range of items of information that can currently be required no longer will be. With pensioner credit, pensioners will no longer have to report savings of over £6,000 or child maintenance payments. They will not have to report student grants or loans, if they have gone into higher education or the university of the third age, and they will not have to report rent on land or on a second property.
	All in all, this will be a system in which pensioners are entitled to the income because they have paid for it through their taxes over their working lives. It will be a simple, non-intrusive system, with changes only once every five years. That is a universe away from the means tests of the early part of the last century; that is why we need to rehabilitate the means test.
	The policy choice that we face is stark—between targeting money on the poorest pensioners and spreading it equally among rich and poor; between putting the investment into pensions, as the Government have done, and have pledged to continue to do, and cutting spending on pensions, as the Conservatives would have to do to meet their public spending goal of 35 per cent. of GDP. They tried to wriggle out of that, and complained when the Secretary of State mentioned it earlier, but that is no use. That aim has been broadly stated both by the party leader and by the shadow Chancellor, and if that is their goal they will have to tell us at some point where those cuts would come from.
	We heard no policy proposals from the hon. Member for Havant, but the agenda behind his speech was fairly clear, and it is worrying. The Conservatives would reduce the number of people being means-tested by cutting the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit, and claiming that the slack should be taken up by stakeholder pensions. They would then say that if that were not possible, it would be because of design faults in the Government's policy.
	If that is the way the Conservatives plan to save the billions of pounds that would have to come out of pensions to meet their goal of 35 per cent. of GDP, they should be ashamed of themselves. They know as well as anyone else that for a significant number of people in lower-income households there will never be any sense in saving huge amounts in an occupational or private pension, because it would be much better for them to spend that money as income now, on feeding their families, rather than saving a tiny amount for their retirement, which would probably be dwarfed by the benefits that they received from the state.
	The earnings limit for the minimum income guarantee is a major departure for pensions policy. The Conservatives make the charge that that reduces incentives to save. Of course that is true, but it was also true of income support, which the MIG replaced. The reason why it now affects more people is simply that the MIG is more generous than income support. In introducing the pension credit, we are therefore addressing a problem that has been inherent in our pension system for decades. As Lord Fowler said in the other place:
	"I should have preferred it if my government had introduced the pension credit . . . It is long overdue, and my hope is that it will provide support for some of the most deserving people in this country."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2001; Vol. 630, c. 165.]
	Of course I am aware that many people say that the pension credit is too complicated. I look forward to examining the details of the scheme during the Select Committee's next inquiry, which will be into that very issue. The outcome of the pension credit is simple, even if its workings may be complicated. Pensioners will keep 60 per cent. of any private pension, which will make a significant difference to 5.5 million people. We have already started to see progress: more than half a million fewer pensioners now live in households with a low income than did in 1997, and people of working age now contribute £19 billion more in real terms to non-state pensions.
	The Opposition say that the Government's policy is failing. Is that why stakeholder pensions have been welcomed by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), by Lord Fowler in the other place, and even by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman? The Government's policy will stand the most important test of any pensions policy—the test of time.

Howard Flight: I was disappointed that the Secretary of State responded to the raising of serious issues in what I felt was a party political, knockabout way. There are two clear interrelated problems. One is that the combination of measures intended to address the need for those who are less well-off to have a decent income in retirement—the minimum income guarantee, quickly followed by the pension credit to help stakeholders—has put in place a system whose original thinking was pretty short-term but which, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out, is highly unlikely to be sustainable in the long term.
	A provision that will cost the equivalent of 11p on income tax—about £26 billion in today's money—and put 65 per cent. of the population on means-tested benefit is highly unlikely to survive in the long term. A further serious effect is that it has demotivated employers' in their efforts to provide proper pension schemes for their staff. Everyone in the pensions industry now thinks that the Government's professed objective of reversing the 60 per cent. state funding versus 40 per cent. private funding of pensions is completely unrealistic, and that we are going in the other direction.
	Other hon. Members have said quite a bit about the decline in occupational schemes, but I should stress that they have been one of the British economy's great successes. They are one reason why Britain has enjoyed lower tax rates than the countries of euroland—even under a Labour Government—and why the British economy is doing better than the economies of continental Europe, yet we face the prospect of a serious reversal. Membership of occupational schemes has declined by 500,000 in the past decade, and by 2 million in the past 30 years. As has been cited, 28 per cent. of men and 26 per cent. of women have no occupational employment scheme, whereas 10 years ago the figures were only 19 per cent. and 21 per cent. respectively. The movement away from occupational final salary schemes to money purchase schemes is accelerating. In the past five years, 24 per cent. of firms have made such a shift, and 46 major companies have closed their final salary schemes in the past year alone.
	The key point—it is perhaps not realised—is that, typically, contributions to money purchase schemes are about 7 per cent. less per annum than contributions to final salary schemes. Just when it appears that real returns on investments are declining, as measured by the long-term yield on gilts, savings in pensions are actually being reduced. As a result, in the next 30 years the great majority of people—a generation that will aspire to higher living standards—will not enjoy the pension provision that the present generation enjoy, whether from final salary or money purchase schemes.
	The moral is that there will be a greater burden on taxpayers and the state, at a time when the population will be ageing, the number of people in work declining and the number of retired people increasing. As it stands, the policy does not stack up and is not capable of surviving the next 20 or 30 years. Above all, pensions policies should be long term. It is no good trying to address a genuine short-term problem by cobbling together a policy that is impossible to deliver and that damages long-term provision.
	I am horrified by what I see happening today. Typically, employers will say, "Your remuneration package is worth so much, so between 7 and 10 per cent. can be put into a money purchase pension, or you can have the money." Quite understandably, many people under 35 are saying, "We'll have the money." As a result, they have no form of occupational provision. They say, "We've got the pension guarantee and the minimum income guarantee—we don't really need such provision. The state will be there to look after us." As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out, that is unrealistic.
	There is a positive angle. In America, independent retirement accounts—IRAs—and 401Ks have been extremely successful in reviving pension saving in the private sector. In Canada, more than 40 per cent. of the population have a regulated retirement savings plan. Under that system, there is no obligation to buy an annuity on retirement.
	The case has been argued in different places. It is unwise of the Government not to recognise that when ordinary people up and down the country save for their retirement, they do not want to be locked into buying what they perceive as a bad-value annuity. That is why, increasingly, people save and buy properties. In the past, thank the Lord, they used personal equity plans and today they use individual savings accounts, but they are not attracted by pension arrangements with an annuity obligation.
	When he was at the Treasury, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was a keen promoter of the independent pension account. It was envisaged to be much like an ISA—a tax wrapper, but subject to the pension rules. It would be extremely simple: there would be no requirement to belong to a pension scheme on top of it, people could save for their old age with a mixture of ISAs and IPAs—one governed by pension rules and one by ISA rules—and then provide for their old age themselves. It was thought that it would suit many people who were self-employed, especially women, who might not work for their full careers. However, the IPA was stillborn—it has been a complete failure, with no providers and no takers because it adds costs. There is the double cost of belonging to a pension scheme, as well as the IPA charges. Moreover, there is the terminal problem of IPA moneys having to go into an annuity upon retirement.
	I caution the Government: they have had five years to address pension policies. We were told that the stakeholder pension was to be the main solution. The Minister for Pensions was a little disingenuous on one occasion in arguing that the people who have bought stakeholder pensions are those whom the Government intended should buy them. The Government clearly intended stakeholder pensions as a savings vehicle for ordinary people, not just as a tax benefit vehicle. The take-up rate has been disappointing. The large numbers of corporate schemes are merely intended to meet the legal requirements, and the members thereof are few and far between.
	It is unwise for the Government to continue to argue that they place their hopes of private sector pension accumulation on the stakeholder. It is not happening, nor does it look as though it will. I wish that it would, but I do not think that it will until the annuity issue is addressed. Furthermore, it will not happen easily while there is the promise of the Government's minimum income guarantee and pension credit. People who find it hard to save for their pension wonder why on earth they should bother if they know that they will be looked after out of overall taxation.
	It is a growing, invisible problem. It is ridiculous that, in an age of greater affluence, the majority of people will be less well provided for in their retirement than the generation coming up to retirement. There is the risk that the policy will lead to the same problems found in continental Europe. Retirement income will become a massive burden on taxation, leading to excessive taxes on employment, which will, in turn, damage overall economic performance. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want. Indeed, their commitment to reverse the swing from 40:60 to 60:40 suggests that they want to go in the other direction.
	Pension policy is not working, and I would like to see greater cross-party collaboration to get it right. However, the onus is on the Government to recognise the problems. Let us hope that the Pickering report will propose some solutions. This is not a party political issue. The Government are the Government; it is not for the Opposition to make the Government's policy on pensions, but there are major policies to address, and address quickly.

John Mann: I rise humbly after hearing some of the earlier speeches. I am among those new Members who have great problems in working out whether the transfer value of my previous occupational pension is such that I should move it into the parliamentary scheme. I suspect, even so, that my knowledge and instincts are somewhat greater than those of the vast majority of my constituents, particularly those who are 45 or younger.
	The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) made a thoughtful speech, but his final point perplexed me. He spoke about young people and buy-to-let schemes. I do not mean to question his remark, which I am sure was quite accurate, but it would be fairly safe to bet that no young people in my constituency will buy to let rather than take out a pension. I have received no correspondence on the notion of pension planning, and I suspect that my predecessor also received little. Pension planning is not much discussed at dinner or in pubs and clubs in my constituency.
	The "live for today" mentality is not new to our society, but it has increased. That is not the fault of any political party, but it is a key problem that we need to address. Those who are expert in pensions and who give me their views in my surgeries are retired people. They can quote me the value of the BT shares that they expectantly bought some time ago. They can tell me about the windfall that they have not had and can tell me year by year—some of them, day by day—the value of their holdings. They are waiting for a change in fortune so that they can cash in on their windfalls, and they are precisely the people who will hold the Government to account.
	Indeed, the mistaken policy of the 75p increase in pensions was repeatedly rammed down our throats on the doorstep during the election by a section of the population who spoke from an informed, not an ignorant, standpoint. We need a civic debate about pensions, and education that reaches younger people. Perhaps it could start in schools—I am not sure whether that occurs at present. Certainly, young workers or students in higher education need to know what it all means to help with their forward planning. If we expect them to take responsibility, we must realise that it will not happen unless they have knowledge.
	Home ownership is preponderant, but less usual in the coalfields. A great phenomenon—pronounced as we move to the south coast, but existing in microcosm in the coalfields—is the way in which homeowners downsize their houses as they reach their chosen age of retirement. Usually, it happens once, though sometimes it is more frequent. Perhaps the most important thing that the Government could do for my constituents would be to safeguard retirement income by encouraging housing regeneration among former mine housing stock. Some homes are owned, but are in an appalling state of repair. Others are owned by private landlords, who bought them from the National Coal Board. Those homes ought to be occupied by private owners, giving them a legacy that they could cash in at some stage for their pensions. My point may strike the debate at something of a tangent, but it would help with forward planning.
	My next point relates to the role of the trade unions. The case for occupational pensions has been made strongly several times during the debate. However, the whole ethos of such pensions goes hand in hand with strong and effective workplace representation where there is negotiation with employers. Pension contributions are deferred earnings that should be negotiated and safeguarded by workplace representatives. In coming years, we must as a priority increase the roles, responsibilities and powers of pension fund trustees to safeguard those funds.
	In this country, we tend to take a little Englander—or rather a little United Kingdomer—view on pensions. We might look to Germany for examples of the assistance given to pension fund trustees or, more usefully, at the fundamental role played by trade unions in Denmark and Belgium in the provision of pensions. We need not adopt their programmes wholesale, but they can inform our debate on how unions can promote occupational pensions.
	Indeed, I would go further in respect of the role of trade unions in stakeholder pensions. I am surprised that there was no criticism on that point from either of the Opposition Front Benchers. We have heard much from trade union leaders in the past 48 hours. Would that those leaders put the same passion and thought into the important issue of stakeholder pensions. By seizing that issue—by using stakeholder pensions in negotiations—unions could begin to recreate part of their traditional role in the workplace and in society. That role goes back more than a century and was itself part of the genesis of the occupational pension programme.
	That is only a partial solution within a partial solution; nevertheless it is waiting to be grabbed. If the unions will not come to the Government, the Government should go to them and ask that they play their rightful historical role by promoting stakeholder pensions along with occupational pensions.
	The problems of short-termism as regards the Government's record are somewhat mitigated by the fact that the Government are doing quite well, although the Opposition obviously do not want to admit it. The basic pension is up. The minimum income guarantee is up. The winter fuel allowance is popular.
	I am all in favour of our continuing to please today's pensioners. Far be it from me to do anything other than applaud our Government and to expose the changes that would result from a tax cut should the Opposition come to power. However, I urge Ministers to take a longer view—beyond today's pensioners to those of 20, 30 or 40 years hence. That will require courage from the Government—as it would from any Government—but my plea is that we should have that courage.
	The Government may be in power for a long period—naturally, I hope so. The last Government were in power for a long time—18 years—and they squandered the opportunity of giving us a long-term pensions policy that would benefit future generations. Let us ensure that our Government do not make the same mistake.

Andrew Selous: I very much welcome the Government's stated intention to increase from 40 to 60 per cent. the share of pensioners' incomes that will come from the private sector, not only because of the increase in independence and security that will be afforded to those pensioners, but because it will release more funds from the public purse to be spent on other public services, such as our schools and national health service. I also pay tribute to the attention that the Government have paid to less well-off pensioners; we have an important obligation to current pensioners.
	The decline in funded pensions, however, is extremely worrying. The most recent family resources survey shows a reduction in the proportion of employees with occupational or personal pensions across all age groups. A new Government report tells us that by 2050, when 40 per cent. of pensioner incomes are supposed to come from the state, 65 per cent. of pensioners will, in fact, rely on the pension credit. Those are the current forecasts.
	The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's latest report on poverty says that a substantial fall in the number of poor pensioners is unlikely
	"until and unless the Government's policies aimed at encouraging greater use of private pensions start having an effect in the longer term."
	It is regrettable that we are heading in the other direction. What is most regrettable in the decline in funded pensions is the decline in final salary or defined-benefit schemes. Many companies have recently stopped providing such schemes to their employees. Lloyds TSB, Sainbury's, British Telecom, ICI, Marks and Spencer and, not least, Bedfordshire's very own Whitbread, have all recently ended their final salary schemes, and pension fund trustees tell me that the complexity of regulation, the contracting out rules and the market circulars are largely to blame.
	I am told that, whereas only two or three years ago a pension fund trustee would have to take a slim file of papers to meetings, he now probably needs to take a ring binder 4 in thick to carry the different documents needed to cope with the complexity of regulation. So is it any wonder that those schemes are in decline? The regrettable outcome of the demise of those schemes is that benefits are no longer provided to dependants. Death-in-service pensions, rather than lump sums, used to be payable to surviving spouses and dependent children; they are not generally payable with money purchase schemes.
	The principles that underlie our pensions system should be those of simplicity, clarity and a strong incentive to get our young people to save. Those principles are lacking in the current rules that govern annuities. Pensioners tell us that the requirement to buy an annuity at 75 provides poor value. Contrary to what Ministers have told us, that is an issue for vast numbers of people—some 10.5 million workers in this country have contracted out, so half our work force are affected and have an interest in annuity matters.
	The crux of the issue is inheritability, which has been touched on by several hon. Members. Under the current rules, an annuity is paid and if people die a few years into their pensions, that is it. People take a longer-term view with their savings and pensions. One of the reasons why interest has increased in the buy-to-let schemes is that the assets belong to people, just as their houses, cars or any other assets do. We should do well to remember that people aspire to that.
	I should also like to raise the issue of what rights employees have to the surpluses on their pension funds. They have contributed to those funds, so it does not seem right that the company can simply take them back. That ownership issue needs to be explored further.

John Butterfill: My hon. Friend will be aware that, in a final salary scheme, the employer has an obligation to pay the percentage of that final salary, come what may. Therefore, the issue of who owns the surplus is very much more complex than he seems to suggest.

Andrew Selous: I bow to my hon. Friend's greater knowledge of this subject. In terms of getting people to take an interest in their pensions and providing them with an incentive to do so, the issue of inheritability merits further study. However, I appreciate his point that it is a complex issue.
	According to a report by Oliver, Wyman & Company in September last year, the savings gap in this country at the moment is £27 billion. That is the difference between what we should have invested to treat future generations of elderly people in a respectful way and what we have invested at present. The bad news is that that savings gap is projected to increase by a further £6 billion over the next five years. There are several reasons why that gap is projected to worsen. We have heard about the complexity of current schemes, and about the lack of inheritability. We are also told that there will be a net decrease of 9,000 in the number of financial advisers across the country. It is estimated that about 3.6 million people on lower incomes have no proper access to financial advice.
	An independent financial adviser in my constituency contacted me on Friday in despair about the Government's current proposals for independent financial advisers, and about the new proposals that will move on from polarisation. He is in fear of losing his job, and his firm is in a state of paralysis. That means that another group of people will not have access to independent financial advice, which is indeed regrettable.
	I deal now with the subject of means-testing, which is reflected in the motion. Many distinguished Members from all parties understand the problems of means-testing, not least the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who have clearly acknowledged the difficulties involved, particularly for pensioners. Indeed, the Chancellor of Exchequer has boasted that he would like means-testing for pensioners to be outlawed. We know that 580,000 pensioners do not claim their income support and that 1,215,000 do not claim their council tax benefit. In total, there is £3 billion of unclaimed benefits. We know that older people in particular have a difficulty with claiming benefit. Although they are entitled to it, they worry about going along to the Benefits Agency. We know that that should not be the case but it is the fact, and we must recognise the way in which people regard such issues.
	In 1995, only 38 per cent. of pensioners were on means-tested support of any sort. That figure is projected to increase to 57 per cent. by 2003. We have heard the future projections up to 2050, so we know that the trend will carry on in that direction. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that recent pension announcements
	"look set to create a substantial increase in means testing."
	The Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which I am a member, published a report on pensioner poverty in August 2000, which states:
	"The increase in non-means tested pension is inevitable and should be done sooner rather than later."
	That was the view of the Select Committee only a year and a half ago. Clearly, the Government have not heeded its advice. As a member of that Select Committee, I hope that the Government will heed our advice when we consider the pension credit, which is the subject of our next report.

Tim Boswell: In an encouraging clutch of stories about pensions in today's press, both tabloids and broadsheets, I was struck by a remark by Mr. Mark Duke of Towers Perrin who was quoted in The Times as saying:
	"People expect a lot, aren't doing enough and don't understand their pensions at all."
	I tend to agree. I am reminded of the man who expressed himself confusedly on a complicated topic, was advised to attend a conference, came back from it and opined that he was still confused but at a somewhat higher level. I suspect that the debate will produce the same effect.
	There are real and simple points to grasp, and it behoves us all to remember them. The savings ratio is at an historically low level. That is unsustainable. There is an estimated historic gap in savings provision of £27 billion. That is unsustainable. The hit is being taken not by the rich, the poor or any particular class but involves nearly everyone who is still in work and who in due course hopes to retire. One of the most encouraging features of the debate is the sense of mutuality. We all have a common problem to face. It will not be solved within the span of a single Parliament and it requires collective action preceded by collective debate.
	The debate has been marked by some interesting and worthwhile contributions by Back-Bench Members. I certainly wish to mention those by Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) made a speech of characteristic balance and erudition. He is a loyal supporter of occupational pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) complemented that by chipping in with his knowledge of investment and the City. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) brings to such debates a passionate commitment to all groups in our society.
	I do not want to suggest that my hon. Friends were the sole contributors. As we would expect, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a magisterial contribution. If we are ever in the business of Government swatting, we may need him to add his voice to ours. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) was more supportive of the Government. Nevertheless, he presented with honesty some of the dilemmas that have to be faced. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) also made a characteristic contribution. If the trade unions are not as active in stakeholder pensions as one might have expected, it is possibly because they do not see them as a good deal for their members. We may need to return to that.
	The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) usually helps us along. He shared some interesting insights with us, as he often does.

Ann Coffey: A new alliance.

Tim Boswell: The hon. Lady must not tempt me. Perhaps she is trying to build a consensus.
	The Secretary of State's contribution still displayed his misplaced self-assurance, however. There was a whiff of complacency and inertia in the face of a fast deteriorating situation. How unlike our dear Marshal Foch in 1918. That distinguished generalissimo of the armies, faced with the German spring offensive of that year, acknowledged the problem honestly by saying, "We are in a terrible mess. The situation is excellent. We shall attack." This Secretary of State does not have the spirit for that. He cowers in his bunker and confines his offensive action to occasional sniping exercises at the Opposition.
	Let me deal with our main concerns about the pension scheme, which are touched on in our substantive motion. There is an extraordinary black hole in pension provision, as revealed in the brilliant forensic introduction to the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). However much the Government try to puff up the level of current contributions to pension schemes, they have had to reveal a staggering deficiency of £100 billion in the value of funds that were in pension schemes in 1999. Frankly, that could enter the "Guinness Book of Records" as the biggest accountancy write-off of all time. Were Oscar Wilde here, I am sure that he would say that to lose £100 million by statistical adjustment might be seen as a misfortune, but to lose £100 billion looks like carelessness.
	If the answer is to shoot the messenger, take the statistics away, and attack the Opposition for daring to say that there is something odd, that shows a gross misconception of our role. I hope that the matter will be sorted out, and for a reason that I will touch on in a moment, there is a systematic problem that merits closer and more reflective discussion.
	Let us remember at any rate that any such reduction in pension funds, whatever the size, is a hit on the value of funds, and, in the real world, reflects funds' collective ability to service pensions. We have only to think of the consequences of the write-down for Equitable Life pensions to see that the value of the funds really matters.
	Pension funds also cast some doubt on the veracity of the figures for contribution inflows, to which the Secretary of State referred. I am highly suspicious and sceptical that if, on our calculations, self-administered arrangements, which account for 6 million occupational pensioners, bring in £14 billion annually to the party of contributions, that must logically mean that that group and personal pension schemes, which account for fewer pensioners, must bring in £58 billion; that seems implausible. There must be an element of double-counting and asset transfers.
	The second area of grief is the inexorable decline in defined-contribution schemes. That was well set out in the National Association of Pension Funds annual survey, which broadly coincided with our last pensions debate. Every week, the pensions press brings further bad news. For example, this week, Professional Pensions leads with the story, "Ernst and Young closes DB plan amid FRS17 fears". I apologise to non-regular readers for the rather terse and technical presentation, but perhaps I can draw out two salient points from the article.
	First, Ernst and Young is rightly described in the text as an "accountancy giant". Presumably, therefore, even if I do not know, it at least knows what it is talking about. Secondly, the problem identified is Ernst and Young's worry over the new accounting standard FRS17, which is only now beginning to work its way through the system and will doubtless involve many other firms in unpleasant decisions, as they look at their profit and loss accounts, the provisions that they will need to make, the profits that they can declare and the dividends that they can pay, with the consequential effect on pension schemes and the incomes thereof.
	Let us note, too, that the Ernst and Young decision does not merely close the defined-benefit scheme to new entrants. It starts the process of winding up the scheme altogether and the transfer to defined contributions. However good, that replacement defined-contribution scheme must at least increase the element of risk to the individual pension investor.
	Then, perhaps, we should look at what is happening to defined-contribution or money purchase schemes themselves. The same front page, which I offer to the Minister to save time if he has not been able to read the whole analysis, adjacently reports the study by actuarial consultants William M. Mercer, which predicts that up to 3 million occupational scheme members and individuals will contract back into the state second pension scheme over the next five years because, according to its Mr. Dick Strattan, the Government's contracting-out rebates
	"fail to take proper account of current market conditions, such as lower interest rates and investment returns."
	He goes on:
	"On our calculations, they account for considerably less than the full value of the state pension foregone—in some instances, arguably as little as half."
	That of course rings a bell with those already familiar with the stakeholder pension situation. We discussed that in detail last time, hence its relatively lower profile in this debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Havant showed that most of the uptake lay outside the target groups. [Interruption.] It is no good the Secretary of State attempting to laugh it off—he does not know where there has been uptake. In any event, uptake is rather disappointing. A trickle of money continues to go in, but Ministers are dragging their feet. They are most reluctant to give a now overdue answer to my question about measures to improve uptake—they do not know whether they want to improve it, or, if they do, how to do so.
	Ministers have been less than frank about pointing out that proper advice on whether to take out a stakeholder pension might be charged as independent advice, and so be extra to the 1 per cent. administration charge of which they are so proud. None the less, the Government continue their lavish advertising campaign on general pensions awareness, which is costing almost £10 million. The authentic voice of new Labour is heard in a written answer given to me last week by the Minister for Pensions. It states:
	"Changing attitudes towards planning for retirement is not a straightforward task and will take time. We are planning to continue pensions education activity."—[Official Report, 31 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 537W.]
	We have been warned.
	The Government have, however, made it clear that they intend no major activity in respect of annuities. They are bent on disregarding the view of the House so clearly expressed on 11 January in giving Second Reading to the admirable Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). By so doing, they deny choice to pensioners.
	The Government cannot even manage to get their own consultation paper out on time. It is to come out tomorrow, but that is at least six weeks late, which is typical of the Government's dilatoriness. I understood that the outcome of the annuities consultation exercise was to be published before Christmas; I might be misinformed, but I understand that Christmas was approximately six weeks ago.
	If the Secretary of State does not get his administrative act together, the new pension service, of which Ministers are all so proud and which will have to service 11 million pensioners and 5 million pension credit beneficiaries, might, as Age Concern warns, prove unequal to the task.

Steve Webb: Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate on where and when hon. Members will first read the detail of the annuities report?

Tim Boswell: It would be unwise, and possibly invidious, to say. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no, in the nicest possible way. The Government will sit there, fiddling like Nero over the general pensions front, until the US Cavalry in the shape of Alan Pickering reports with what I hope will be a major deregulatory package. The sooner that report is received and acted on, the better.
	Meanwhile, the apostles of complexity on the Treasury Bench add new touches and torments in the State Pension Credit Bill. They are indeed spending a couple of billion pounds a year, but they do so at a remarkably heavy price in complexity and disincentives to saving. In the long term, the costs might escalate to a staggering £26 billion—but if one has just wiped £100 billion off the funds, £26 billion does not seem too much between friends.
	Our motion is ready to give the Government credit for their objectives where and if credit is due. We welcome their stated aim of increasing from 40 to 60 per cent. the proportion of pensioner income coming from the private sector. Delivery, not intention, is the problem. We remember that it was the Labour Government who set their face against an increase in means-testing, and we judge their intentions against their achievements in that respect. By 2003, pension credits are likely to involve 57 per cent. of pensioners, and that proportion might rise to two thirds as the scheme rolls out. Two thirds of our pensioners might be on means-tested benefits in future; however softened, it will still be means-testing.
	Opposite sits the sorcerer in the shape of the Secretary of State, and the sorcerer's apprentice in the shape of the Minister for Pensions, who will shortly reply to the debate. They like to brandish the goodies they put into the pot, and they enjoy giving it the occasional stir to keep things apparently busy. Now they are simply sitting back, waiting for Pickering. The pensions pot beneath them is holed and draining fast. There will soon be little left except thin gruel for the taxpayer.
	To return to my beginning in these remarks, and to adapt my initial quotation from Mr. Duke of Towers Perrin, in pensions it is the Government who are not doing enough, and they do not understand pensions at all.

Ian McCartney: I came to London this morning full of hope that, the Conservative Opposition having initiated the second debate in 10 weeks on pension policy, we would learn something. Of course, it has been a policy-free debate on the part of Conservative Members. We started with a spokesman from the Opposition Dispatch Box and we finished on the Siegfried line. We had crocodile tears, scaremongering and hand wringing from one or two of the old-fashioned one-nation Tories who have been banished to the Back Benches for ever. We never received one view from the Conservatives about what they would do for older people, whether in terms of a pension policy or any other policy related to older people.
	The Leader of the Opposition would hit pensioners hard. He is a bitter opponent of both the winter fuel scheme and the minimum income guarantee. He has said:
	"MIG is a huge rise in spending . . . I can think of nothing to recommend it".
	Yet about 2,000 of his constituents benefit from it. By attacking the MIG, do Conservative Members want to continue to withdraw resources from the poorest pensioners?

Tim Boswell: The right hon. Gentleman has accused us of not producing any policies. I think he will have noticed that we are unlikely to be in a position to enact any of our policies until after the next general election. We shall certainly do so when the time comes. I ask him what he would like to do at the next election. Will he commit the Government to maintaining the earnings link for pension credit after the next election? When he has answered that question, he may start lecturing us about our policy.

Ian McCartney: It is a weak excuse to say, "I will not be in power for a generation", and not give the public the Opposition's view of their pension policy. As for the minimum income guarantee, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear time and time again that the arrangements are for this Parliament. When we come to the next general election and present our manifesto, we will once again be the only party with policies to tackle pensioner poverty and, more important, to ensure in future that there will be no pensioners living in poverty, which is what we inherited from the Conservative Government.
	We have heard winter fuel payments described as "cock-eyed", yet 20,000 of the Leader of the Opposition's constituents receive winter fuel payments. The right hon. Gentleman supported value added tax on fuel and voted for it to increase to 17.5 per cent. If that were not enough, let me refer to his view on the basic state pension. He said that it
	"should become a function of the Private Sector".
	That is the Tories' hidden agenda. That is why they have taken it off the website. That is why they are not giving an opinion in public. It is the same agenda as was rubbished at the last election. It will be rubbished at the next election and the election after that. It will be rubbished until the Tories learn something about working with older people in a more effective way.

Annabelle Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Ian McCartney: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady, and I will explain why. First, she has not been in her place for more than half the debate. Secondly, we were debating poverty in Scotland last week, and the Scottish National party did not turn up for that debate either. I tell the hon. Lady to stop being a part-time Member and to attend debates in this place more regularly.
	I have read the records. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is the Baldrick of the Conservative Front Bench. In March 1996, he said:
	"BSE is not a risk in the normal sense of the word."
	Would you trust this man with your pension fund, Madam Deputy Speaker?
	The Tories failed not just once, but time and time again, in the 18 years they were in power, when they consigned millions year on year to a life of poverty, treating them with utter contempt. They failed to tackle the legacy of pensioner poverty, but we introduced the MIG so that the poorest pensioners will be at least £15 better off. If the Tories were in power, they would withdraw that and cut £15 from the pensions of 2 million of the poorest pensioners.
	We inherited the SERPS mess, which affected millions of people. We are putting in £50 billion over the next 50 years to put that error right. We made sure that compensation was paid to those who were conned through the mis-selling scandal; again, thousands and thousands of people were swindled. The total cost of putting that right is estimated at some £13.5 billion. Conservatives may have come to debate holes in pension policy, but the only holes in pension policy in the past two decades were created by their party; it has taken the Labour party in government to plug those holes.
	Ten weeks ago, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that stakeholder pensions were a flop. Tonight, we have the latest figures; from a standing start in eight months, 637,000 people working in the private sector who, a year ago, did not have a pension or the possibility of having one, now have one because of the Labour Government. Some 310,000 employers, over 80 per cent. of those who should register, have already registered; a year ago, those employers were not prepared to provide a vehicle for their staff to share in a pension when they retire.

David Willetts: I should like to give the Minister an opportunity to correct the assertion that he has just made. He said that 600,000 people who did not previously have a pension have taken out stakeholder pensions. Will he confirm that we know that 170,000 of those people already had a pension from the construction industry scheme, and that many others had concurrent pensions? Perhaps the only people who did not have a pension, and about whom the Minister is right, are grandchildren and non-working wives.

Ian McCartney: The construction industry's old pension scheme was closed down. If it were not for stakeholder pensions, 170,000 construction workers in Britain would not have a pension entitlement. Construction industry employers are choked to find that the Conservatives continue to attack their efforts to introduce an industry notorious for lack of commitment to the stakeholder pension. The industry and its work force are fully supportive of stakeholder pensions.

Richard Younger-Ross: rose—

Ian McCartney: Okay, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was here for the full debate.

Richard Younger-Ross: I note that the Minister frequently says that Conservative policies have no clothes, and I remember what was said about pensions management by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). Does the Minister not concede that, by comparison, the Government have barely a fig leaf?

Ian McCartney: I did not quite catch the hon. Gentleman's last remark, but if it was anything like the contribution of his hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), the answer is no.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is in his place; I thank him for supporting the Government's efforts to help poor pensioners. The issues are indeed difficult, and we may well be dealing with them in a rough and ready way. However, the truth is that the Government, in the long term as well as the short term, will provide sustainability and investment in state sector pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) made an excellent contribution on the benefits of the Government's strategy of targeting poor pensioners. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats have come up with an adequate answer tonight; if they really want to tackle pensioner poverty, why do they oppose every measure that we take to tackle pensioner poverty, either by voting against it in the House or rubbishing it outside?

James Purnell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. Is it not typical of Opposition Members that they refuse to say whether they would support any single policy? They refused to say whether they supported the MIG or the earnings limit. The one thing that they made clear they would support is annuities reform, which would disproportionately benefit the rich and the better-off.

Ian McCartney: The only declared policy of the Conservative party is to support the richest 5 per cent. of pensioners against the other 95 per cent., whom the Government are helping on a regular basis.
	In a wide ranging speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) spoke not only about pensioners' income, but about coalfields regeneration. The Government are putting tens of billions of pounds not only into pensions, but into coalfields regeneration, working with local authorities, the European Community and the public and private sectors to improve housing stock, jobs and the environment, and will continue to do so. It was the Conservatives who abandoned coalfield communities. They tried to destroy those communities and close them down, but they never could and they never will, because of the support that the Government give to coalfield communities.
	As for pension provision, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw spoke about trade union issues. Through the Trades Union Congress, the trade union movement has a stakeholder pension policy. I ask my hon. Friend to encourage trade union members to support that and to sign up to it. He asked what we were doing in respect of pension fund trustees. The next step is to encourage stakeholder activism. A scheme should have independent custodians, and trustees should be familiar with issues involved in reaching investment decisions.
	The hon. Member for Northavon made a curious speech. He called on us to spend, spend, spend on pensioners, yet he will go into the Lobby tonight with the Conservative party, which is committed to cutting public expenditure by £60 billion a year. The hon. Gentleman might have a point about all the issues that he raised, were it not for the fact that he voted against the minimum income guarantee, he will probably vote against the pension credit, he voted against the second state pension, and he voted against new deal and new deal 50-plus.
	We are the first Government in history to do something about the long-term unemployed, especially those over 50 years of age. Members of the Liberal Democrats talk a good story, but they never do anything practical to help the poor, whether the unemployed or the pensioners.
	In a thoughtful contribution, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) dealt with defined benefits and defined contributions. We will shortly issue a consultation document, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and I will have further discussions about some of the matters that he raised. The issues that he raised tonight were legitimate concerns which I am happy to discuss with him.
	To hon. Members who spoke about the Government and the black hole in pension investment, may I say that as well as the take-up of stakeholder pensions, the value of new pension sales rose by 9 per cent. in the last recorded quarter? Regular premiums increased by 50 per cent. in the last reported quarter, and new single premium pension policies rose by 2 per cent. The Government are ensuring investment in the public and private sectors.
	I am not one to bear a grudge against the Opposition for their past failings, but I am thinking of writing to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health after the debate, seeking additional funds for the local hospital of the hon. Member for Havant. I am keen to ensure that the hon. Gentleman has his brass neck dealt with before it becomes fatal. After the debate, perhaps the hon. Member for Daventry should take a taxi to St. Thomas' to have his chronic humbug cured.
	The Opposition can go on all they like about our pensions policies, but let us consider that they would certainly have done for pensioners had they remained in power. The poorest pensioners would have been abandoned, because the Tories would not have taken up our challenge and introduced the MIG. They would have done nothing about fuel poverty, and would have withdrawn winter fuel payments. They would not have introduced pension credit, and they would have done nothing for future pensioners, as they try to rubbish stakeholder pensions at every turn. They would have put no extra cash into resolving the problems of SERPS and pensions mis-selling. Indeed, the Conservatives tried to hide the mis-selling of pensions, and nothing would have been done about it if the present Government had not been elected.
	Like the leopard, the Tories cannot change their spots. Perhaps that is another ailment for which they should be seeking medical help. I fear that, if left untreated, the problem might become terminal.
	I call on my colleagues, first, to reject the Tory motion tonight and to vote for today's and tomorrow's pensioners; and secondly, when we go out on the campaign in the country, to let the pensioners know that the Liberal Democrats voted with the Tories for cuts in public expenditure, cuts in employment, cuts in transport, cuts in health care and cuts in social services. That is the true face of the Liberal Democrats. They are just another bunch of right-wing fanatics.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 296.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 174.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government's framework for pensions which will reduce pensioner poverty and encourage saving; further welcomes the fact that pension savings are now at record levels and the increased choice given by stakeholder pensions; further welcomes the Government's decision to set up the Pickering review; and congratulates the Government on the extra £6 billion paid to pensioners from April and its intention to bring in the Pension Credit which will increase the incomes of around half of all pensioners.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Civil Aviation

That the draft Air Navigation (Environmental Standards) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

1901 CENSUS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Edward Davey: Tonight, I am raising an issue that I can genuinely say is of interest to millions of people in the United Kingdom and across the world. About 30 million people sent a powerful message to the Government when, from 2 January this year, they tried—mostly in vain—to connect to the 1901 census website. Overwhelmed, the website closed on 6 January. I hope that the Minister will reassure me and those millions of people that the Government have heard their message and recognise not only that Ministers should ensure that a relaunched site works but that there is a huge opportunity for the Government on the web if they get this right.
	For hon. Members who are not sure what I am talking about, let me briefly explain. The 1901 census was published on 2 January 2002. The Public Record Office met its statutory requirements to make that information available, and the public can now access the census using microfiche from the Public Record Office at Kew as well as from many local record offices and public libraries up and down the country.
	This year, however, census publication was supposed to be different. As well as using the common microfiche format, the plan was to make the 1901 census available online. That was a fabulous concept. It would have enabled the whole world to search a database of 32 million names from Edwardian England, a transformation for historical research and a dream come true for the fast-growing number of professional and amateur genealogists.
	As a newcomer to addictive family research, I should probably declare an interest. For nearly a year, I have dabbled in the search for my ancestors, and it was with some excitement on 2 January that I typed www.pro.gov.uk into my computer's search engine. Like millions of others, I was sadly disappointed. On behalf of those millions of frustrated people, I feel it right to raise the matter so that the Government may answer questions about the project.
	I shall seek answers on three main points. First, how was the scheme's failure allowed to happen, and what went wrong? Secondly, how is it being put right, and is the Minister satisfied that it will be put right with no repetition of failure? Thirdly, what lessons have been learned? I believe that profound and far-reaching lessons emerge from what happened.
	Before I approach the meat of those questions, I want to record my admiration for the Public Record Office. That may sound surprising given what I have just said, but I do not blame the PRO for the failure. If anyone should carry the can, it should be the contractor—QinetiQ—or the Lord Chancellor's Department and the wider private finance initiative programme. I have visited the PRO and seen the rest of its online work, and I know that it is a deeply impressive public service in which committed civil servants are dedicated to high-quality delivery for the public. One need only examine the PRO's annual reports and the extremely high customer satisfaction ratings that it achieves to realise that it is a public service that works. The PRO has done well when it has undertaken other information technology projects, such as its amazing online catalogue—PROCAT—or its access to archives initiatives. It has delivered them on time and on budget. The Minister may rest assured that I have no wish to have a go at the PRO. It is a cutting edge example of the public sector at its best.
	My focus falls only on the 1901 census web-based project. The concept of putting the 1901 census online cannot be faulted. It was the right decision. The number of people who tried to visit the site shows that the public thought it the right decision. The problem lay in the execution of the project.
	In 1998, it was clear to the PRO—presumably, therefore, to Ministers—that it could not pay for a project from its existing budget to put the 1901 census online. A decision was taken to opt for the PFI route. That initial decision raises a series of questions. Did the Lord Chancellor's Department ever consider funding the 1901 census as a one-off public sector project, led by the Public Record Office? What alternatives to the PFI were put to Ministers? Which Ministers took the decision? Was the e-envoy consulted?
	One might understand why the PFI was considered suitable in 1998. It was presumably recognised that the website would be popular, and that money was to be made. In 1998, the dotcom bubble had not yet burst. The PRO went to tender in November 1998. I hope that the Minister will confirm that about 30 expressions of interest were received in response to the initial notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities. What I have not been able to discover is how many companies ended up on the shortlist. I understand that many companies withdrew when they realised the sheer enormity of the project—the transcription of 32 million separate 1901 census entries in a relatively short time, and the building of a website database system robust enough to withstand large demand. I am led to believe that the number of companies able to reach the final shortlist was extremely small. Will the Minister give the House that number? If she cannot do so now, will she write to me? The point is germane to the National Audit Office's future consideration of the project.
	I have a sneaking suspicion that only one firm was on the shortlist: DERA—the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—since transformed into the commercial, publicly owned company, QinetiQ. However, when the contract was awarded in October 1999, DERA was still an agency of the Ministry of Defence. My guess is that DERA was the default public sector option, as the private sector eventually declined to bid properly.
	DERA still had to bid for a quasi-commercial contract to meet the tender standards and the so-called rigours of the Government's PFI. The Lord Chancellor's Department had to be seen to be participating in the PFI movement. DERA as QinetiQ is now truly commercial and may also soon be privatised. It may be bought by the US company Carlyle, whose chairman is former Prime Minister John Major according to The Sunday Telegraph and The Guardian. However, QinetiQ will never do more than the contract demands. It has no wider sense of the public good and no wider duty to the public good, although the census is public information and is thus almost by definition what economists mean by a public good.
	What are the terms of QinetiQ's contract? Well, of course, we cannot be told—they are commercially sensitive. That was the frequent refrain in ministerial replies to my questions and those of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who is in his place this evening. We asked for details of the penalty clauses affecting QinetiQ—commercially sensitive. We asked for the final tender price—commercially sensitive. We asked for the contracts to be placed in the Library—commercially sensitive.
	Will the Minister tell us whether we will ever learn the details of that contract? Will they ever become public and, if so, how long after the contract began? Will the 30-year rule—or perhaps even the 100-year rule—apply? Is commercial sensitivity always to be used as an excuse to prevent MPs from searching for the truth on behalf of the public good? Some of us think that commercial sensitivity is sometimes a pseudonym for "politically sensitive".
	We know a few things, however. Since 1998, the taxpayer has spent £1.2 million on the 1901 census online project, but the bulk of the funding came from QinetiQ. It used independent finance, although no one would tell me how much. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
	We are told that QinetiQ is allowed by the contract to "cover their costs" and make "a reasonable return". We do not know how much the return might be. That is politically—sorry, commercially—sensitive. However, page four of the annual report of the Keeper of the Public Records notes that, after the contractor has made a reasonable return:
	"Any additional revenue will be invested in digitising further census."
	Will the Minister tell the House whether the digitisation of further census is dependent on what is left over after QinetiQ has made a reasonable return? If so, on current form, it might never happen, because we learn from the Minister's answers that the cost of the additional work needed to relaunch the site will be met by QinetiQ. At one level, that is reassuring, but there are two concerns.
	If QinetiQ has to invest more to put the problem right, will it take the company even longer to make a "reasonable return"? Will it thus take even longer before QinetiQ can fund the digitisation of another census, such as that for 1891? One would need to see the detail of the contract to answer that question—but that is of course commercially sensitive.

David Lidington: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the question of access to the accounts of publicly owned companies by the Comptroller and Auditor General and by the Public Accounts Committee was explored in some detail by the Sharman review set up by the Government? We have been waiting for more than a year for the Government's reply to that review. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the census project would offer a good test case of the Government's readiness to allow the access by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the PAC that Lord Sharman recommended?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Lord Sharman carried out an important public audit review and I hope that the Government will meet its recommendations. The project would indeed make a good test case.
	I want to return to the amount of investment. If the investment needed to put the website back online with a guarantee of good service was very large, QinetiQ may have been willing to make that investment, but no one may have been able to force it do so under the contract. That is a real concern, which takes me back to the inherent problem that lies behind this tragic episode—guessing the public demand for that new public service. As the apology on the PRO's website makes clear, the website was designed for 1.2 million visitors a day. On the launch, however, it received 1.2 million visitors an hour.
	So we need to know how the projected demand figures were arrived at, what extra capacity will be built in for relaunch and what are the site's estimated settled or long-run capacity needs. Those were, and are, genuinely difficult questions, mostly because there has been no comparable site before. I am told that the PRO and QinetiQ looked at other sites, such as the American site on the passenger lists of ships arriving from Europe—the Ellis island site—and at the Mormon genealogical sites and that they used the figures from those sites, and added some, but that still was not enough.
	Should they have built more capacity? We are also told that many genealogists were worried that site capacity was not sufficient and that they told the PRO that in October 2001. Yet the PRO is locked into a Government-required PFI contract, so it has little room for manoeuvre. If QinetiQ is not prepared to pay for the extra investment, it will not happen; it did not before the launch, and, worryingly, the extra investment may well not be there for the relaunch. Is the Minister aware that no new extra capacity is planned for the relaunch? Does she think that wise?
	We have read about the increased bandwidth, the firewalls, the divert sites. I have heard that cookies might be developed to knock people off the site if they stay on for too long, blocking others. But what about extra capacity? The aim seems to be to make the site more robust for the 1.2 million estimated visitors to ensure that they have a good experience when they finally get on, but that may well mean long waits and long queues because there is no intention to increase the capacity.
	Does not the Minister realise that the site's capacity will not increase unless and until she and the Department intervene to make that happen? The PRO simply does not have that power over its contractor. I urge the Minister to think long and hard about that. The House will hold her and her colleagues to account if the relaunch does not work. People want to know when the site will be up and working. Can she give the House and the millions of people interested in the site in the United Kingdom and around the world the categoric assurance that the site will work when it is eventually relaunched? When does she expect it to be relaunched?
	In the short time that remains to me, I want to explain to the Minister why I think the project and its success deserve her attention, and, with due respect to her, the attention of Ministers at the very highest levels. The project deserves significant political attention because the site was so popular. When so many millions of people overwhelmingly show that they want information on their own kith and kin that the Government hold, surely the Government should sit up and take notice.
	More people visited the site than watched "Big Brother", than voted on "Pop Idol" or than voted in the last election. The focus groups may not have told those at No. 10 that, but the Minister should do so. Here is a chance to put family values back into the internet, rather than the smut and pornography that has dominated it. Pornography may speak to a human desire, but the desire to contact our family—to reach out to our past and our own genes—is also a powerful human desire, and the Government can back that desire by backing the 1901 census website. Just as the website "Friends Reunited" has been so successful, appealing to the human desire to find long-lost friends, so the census appeals to another positive human instinct.
	Let me put this huge opportunity another way. Rupert Murdoch realised that he needed sport to sell satellite television. He paid huge sums to win exclusive rights to screen test cricket and football, and it worked. With the public sector's monopoly over the census data, the Government could use the census website to build e-government. Let us compare the experience with that site to the hundreds of other Government websites. Yes, people find those websites useful, in their tens, in their hundreds and in their thousands, but which Government website has had millions of visitors in an hour? If we harness that public excitement and the curiosity that people have about their own families, we might transform the prospects and popularity of e-government. People who would otherwise never think of surfing the net might just try it out.
	For example, I have tried several times to explain the internet to my grandmother, but she smiles at me and says, "Yes, dear. But it's so boring." However, when I talk to her about her parents, grandparents and our shared family history, she comes alive. I am not suggesting that I will ever get her surfing the net, but the 1901 census would certainly make it interesting for her. Therefore, for relatively tiny amounts of cash—especially in the context of the hundreds of other e-projects around Whitehall—the Government might just attract the interest of millions more to the web and eventually even to other e-government sites.
	The 1901 census site has the proven potential to move online government on to a new, higher level—and cheaply—but only if the Government move fast and back the Public Record Office before the site's relaunch.

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing this debate on the 1901 census website. The site has certainly generated considerable interest over the past few weeks and I now realise the personal interest that he takes in the subject, about which he spoke passionately.
	I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to praise the staff of the Public Record Office. They certainly deserve our praise, and I too would like to praise them for putting together this project and for doing so in the way that they did. The project is a cornerstone of the PRO's strategy to use information technology to make the historical records in our national archive more accessible to the public.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, the Keeper of the Public Records has a statutory duty to make all census returns available after 100 years. That is her statutory duty, and in the past it was done solely by providing a service on microfilm. However, in planning for the release of the 1901 census, the PRO thought beyond that and wanted to come up with a new and exciting initiative. It wanted to provide an additional online service as it recognised that this was a time of rapidly expanding internet access. It also recognised that that presented a tremendous challenge and an opportunity. Making the census available in that way offers users, for the first time, the prospect of accessing information and images about the more than 32 million people who lived in England and Wales in 1901.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. I shall try to answer as many as I can but if I do not answer them all, I hope that he will feel free to write to me. I shall certainly respond as best I can, bearing in mind that issues of commercial confidentiality are involved. Some of the questions that he raised are covered by that.
	Let us start from the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which was about how the project was funded in the first instance. It was clear that the creation of 1.5 million digital record images and complex IT systems could not be funded out of the PRO's resources. Its annual budget is about £25 million, and there is no doubt that the project would have required upfront several million pounds of additional funding. He mentioned many of the PRO's other commitments and, because of them, it was clear that partnership funding would be required if we were to get this exciting project off the ground. The PRO therefore rightly sought to establish a public-private partnership, the procedures for which it followed to the letter at all times.
	I note the hon. Gentleman's views on the decision to use the process, but I think that the right decision was made. It is a good example of how the public and private sectors can work together to bring service benefits to the citizen at a lower cost to the public purse and at a reasonable cost to the customer, whether accessing the website from the United Kingdom or overseas, because many people outside the country were expected to use it.
	The PRO began the process in November 1998. About 30 organisations expressed interest in the contract, and a full tender exercise was undertaken. Four organisations were shortlisted to produce a full submission. One could not commit to making the 1901 census available online by January 2002 and another withdrew, which left two organisations to provide full submissions. That gives an idea of the scale of the project and the possible risk involved.
	The contract was based on the standard Office of Government Commerce model for information technology projects. The contracts are outcome-based, and the commercial and development risks are transferred to the contractor. The PRO established a dedicated team to work closely with the contractor through a joint programme board to ensure that the deadlines were met. That included the successful delivery of a pilot project, which I saw, using the 1891 online returns for the county of Norfolk.
	In addition, the PRO spent £1.2 million on essential work related to the 1901 census, such as quality assurance. I emphasise that it has not made over any public funds to QinetiQ. The development costs for the online service have been met entirely by QinetiQ using its own sources of finance; it has not received payments, management charges or other fees from the PRO. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, QinetiQ recoups its investment costs through revenue on the charged services from the census website. Once the company has recouped its investment costs, it will pay a proportion of its income back to the PRO for investment in further online services, notably other censuses. In that sense, it is fulfilling the requirement, which the hon. Gentleman set out, that we should consider putting other censuses online. On the extra money that has been invested to improve the site, it is difficult to give the exact timing for the recouping of the money and so on, but we hope that we will put the 1891 and the 1881 censuses online in about a year.
	An advisory panel comprising amateur and professional family historians as well as staff from QinetiQ was set up in January 2000. It met 11 times to give users a full say in the development of the online service. On estimated demand for the service, it is true that members of the advisory panel highlighted the problems that family history websites in the United States experienced at initial launch when attempted use was much heavier than anticipated. At the same time, the panel carefully considered the example of other US websites. It is always difficult to make precise comparisons because some sites provide different information to different audiences. However, the important lesson that was drawn from the US experience—this is at the very heart of many of the hon. Gentleman's questions—is that, after the initial surge in interest, demand for the service markedly declined.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that it would not have made business sense, or any sense, to construct a service that was capable of meeting all demand experienced daily between 2 and 6 January because, in the long run, all the evidence is that demand falls off. That would therefore have been a waste of resources and unnecessary expense.
	There were initial problems with the launch, but they largely arose because the service's popularity outstripped even the generous estimates of likely use. Up to 1.2 million users per day were planned for, which is a massive site by general internet standards. By way of example in the United States, the Genealogical Society of Utah's website, which is probably the biggest such site and, incidentally, had the same kind of problems to start with and crashed at its launch, now has 89,000 users a day.
	We know that nearly 30 million users a day attempted to access the 1901 census between 2 and 6 January. We are working to put right some of the problems that have arisen. I assure the hon. Gentleman of that. Officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department are working with officials from the Public Record Office and staff of the company to ensure that the website is up and ready as soon as possible.
	I am aware of the time, so I hope that I have covered a number of the issues raised by the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I know that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has shown an interest in the work of the Public Record Office recently, and I know that he visited it last week. His hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) has also shown a keen interest in and been very supportive of this ambitious and innovative project.
	Of course I understand the frustration of those people—including the hon. Gentleman, now that I know of his intense personal interest—who were looking forward to finding out about their families and roots on the census site, but I firmly believe that it was right for the PRO to undertake the project. It will provide millions of people with the opportunity to access public records and provide a revenue stream to fund other online services. We would never have been able to do that without a partnership between the public and the private sectors.
	I am very aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and assure him that we are doing everything we possibly can to ensure that the census site becomes the success that it deserves to be and provides enjoyment and interest for the many millions of people who wish to use it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.